Yvon
Established
First of all, I am not sure if I should post it in this section. If not, moderator please remove it from here and place it to wherever it should belong to.
I just briefly describe what I've done for the recent years. Maybe that would help diagnose my problem.
I stumbled into a camera shop in Aug 2008. Pentax K1000, that was the first camera I owned for the cost of S$150. I thought film cameras were all alike until at the end of that year I bid and won a Rollei 35. Rangefinder, I learnt the word. I like it at first. Later on I eyed on leica. Before I had my own leica I took a Russian leica copy Zorki from my friend. I guess the Russian made Industar lens was more worth than the camera itself. Till now, it is still lying in my dry box.
My first leica was a IIIF. I got it from a German ebay seller. Generally I appreciated this LTM's design and classy taste as well as its fame as a legendard Barnack. It was the focusing system that caused the pain and eventually led to my decision to sell it. Within a week, I got a Leica M6. I've long been drooling on M system. I was happy with the focusing, but I missed everything else that I could find on a Barnack. I sold it just after the warranty expired. That was in this July. I took a total of seven rolls of film with it. It was quite pitiful that I sold both cameras to the same store. I did not know what the heck I was doing. I just felt uncomfortable with the M6. It was so much more modern looking than the Barnacks and so much more convenient.
I am using a Nikon Fm3A currently. I am quite happy with the combination of it and Rollei 35, until recently.
I've been changing my cameras for around every six months or so. I think it is definitely a sickness.:bang::bang::bang:. Yes. And more.
I was told that medium cameras can produce far more better images than 135mm ones. I've known this for long enough to make a decision to have one. hasselblad 503cx is my new target. I am not sure what a medium camera means to photographic amateurs like me, but it is a medium format camera, and I want one. Especially now I can develop B&W negtives at home, it makes me more than ever interested in this new category of cameras.
Should I buy one just because I want it? Or I should stay with 35mm for some longer time until I am skill-wise prepared for it?
If I were to stay with 35mm, I want my Barnack back,seriously.
I just briefly describe what I've done for the recent years. Maybe that would help diagnose my problem.
I stumbled into a camera shop in Aug 2008. Pentax K1000, that was the first camera I owned for the cost of S$150. I thought film cameras were all alike until at the end of that year I bid and won a Rollei 35. Rangefinder, I learnt the word. I like it at first. Later on I eyed on leica. Before I had my own leica I took a Russian leica copy Zorki from my friend. I guess the Russian made Industar lens was more worth than the camera itself. Till now, it is still lying in my dry box.
My first leica was a IIIF. I got it from a German ebay seller. Generally I appreciated this LTM's design and classy taste as well as its fame as a legendard Barnack. It was the focusing system that caused the pain and eventually led to my decision to sell it. Within a week, I got a Leica M6. I've long been drooling on M system. I was happy with the focusing, but I missed everything else that I could find on a Barnack. I sold it just after the warranty expired. That was in this July. I took a total of seven rolls of film with it. It was quite pitiful that I sold both cameras to the same store. I did not know what the heck I was doing. I just felt uncomfortable with the M6. It was so much more modern looking than the Barnacks and so much more convenient.
I am using a Nikon Fm3A currently. I am quite happy with the combination of it and Rollei 35, until recently.
I've been changing my cameras for around every six months or so. I think it is definitely a sickness.:bang::bang::bang:. Yes. And more.
I was told that medium cameras can produce far more better images than 135mm ones. I've known this for long enough to make a decision to have one. hasselblad 503cx is my new target. I am not sure what a medium camera means to photographic amateurs like me, but it is a medium format camera, and I want one. Especially now I can develop B&W negtives at home, it makes me more than ever interested in this new category of cameras.
Should I buy one just because I want it? Or I should stay with 35mm for some longer time until I am skill-wise prepared for it?
If I were to stay with 35mm, I want my Barnack back,seriously.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
For pure quality, go for MF. Even a cheap MF such as a Kowa or Pentacon 6 will in many ways wipe the floor with a Leica. On the other hand, for convenience, stick with 35mm: MF, especially with a waist level finder, is slow and awkward to use if you're used to a Leica.
Put it this way: I have at least half a dozen good MF cameras, but put together, they receive less use than my Leicas.
Cheers,
R.
Put it this way: I have at least half a dozen good MF cameras, but put together, they receive less use than my Leicas.
Cheers,
R.
Phantomas
Well-known
MF quality (especially cameras like Hassy) is mindblowing. Check the details on the negatives - it's a whole different world from 135. Watch the aperture - MF will give you shallower DOF at same aperture values.
Are they useful? They are certainly "slow" cameras - you'll need to take time to take a shot. Shooting street is possible but not as fast as RF or an SLR.
I use mine when I want to take portrait, or as above, "slow" photos. I will never get rid of my Hassy (only when I finally dump film, and even then MF will be the last film camera I'd use, because the advantages are a lot more obvious than 135 vs digital).
Are they useful? They are certainly "slow" cameras - you'll need to take time to take a shot. Shooting street is possible but not as fast as RF or an SLR.
I use mine when I want to take portrait, or as above, "slow" photos. I will never get rid of my Hassy (only when I finally dump film, and even then MF will be the last film camera I'd use, because the advantages are a lot more obvious than 135 vs digital).
Bobfrance
Over Exposed
Go for it!
I think it is healthy to explore the options available to you. Eventually you should settle on the camera(s) that suit you best.
I tried medium format and am very glad I did. I shoot it almost exclusively now.
Fortunately there is only a limited amount of film cameras available and there aren't many new ones coming out, so eventually you'll have tried them all.
It would be far worse if you were hooked on digital cameras. They come out faster than most of us can earn money to buy them (and lose money faster than we want to think about!).
I think it is healthy to explore the options available to you. Eventually you should settle on the camera(s) that suit you best.
I tried medium format and am very glad I did. I shoot it almost exclusively now.
Fortunately there is only a limited amount of film cameras available and there aren't many new ones coming out, so eventually you'll have tried them all.
It would be far worse if you were hooked on digital cameras. They come out faster than most of us can earn money to buy them (and lose money faster than we want to think about!).
Bobfrance
Over Exposed
gliderbee
Well-known
At least you're smart enough to sell what you don't use. I know others (...) that keep all their cameras (or nearly all), used or not used. I nearly stopped buying though (since I have all and more then I need ..).
Anyway, I would keep the FM3A and the Rollei as these are totally different cameras. You'll find the quality of MF amazing (but don't try LF or you're lost quality-wise). There are many possibilities (TLR, folders, Mamiya 6 or 7, SLR).
Stefan.
Griffin
Grampa's cameras user
I too have been found ogling MF cameras on the web and at my favorite camera store... I definitely want one, as soon as I have some cash to burn... Perhaps when my son moves out in 18 years.
ferider
Veteran
I have a Hasselblad. It get's used much, much less than my Leicas.
6x6 is a pita to develop and scan. 12 pics per roll is limiting. For the size I want to print, 35mm quality is usually enough.
6x6 is a pita to develop and scan. 12 pics per roll is limiting. For the size I want to print, 35mm quality is usually enough.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Dear Stefan,
Or, of course, stupid enough. He now wants back the camera he sold. Wouldn't it have been smarter not to sell it in the first place?
I have quite a lot of cameras that I use very seldom, but when I want to use one of them... I've already got it.
I really don't think that either approach is smarter than the other. It's just a question of personality, and of how well you know yourself.
Cheers,
R.
SimonSawSunlight
Simon Fabel
oh? why would you think that?
ferider
Veteran
1) 12 picks in one tank compared to 72
2) I love my 5000 ED automatic film feed
3) The nr. of defects to remove with PS is proportional to negative size.
mfogiel
Veteran
First of all, ask yourself what are you after: images or cameras?
If it is images, then what do you shoot: portraits/landscapes, or street, travel. people?
If the answers are: images and portrait/landscape, go into medium format, if it is street/ travel, get back your M6. In both cases, think about the output - plan for buying an expensive scanner.
If it is images, then what do you shoot: portraits/landscapes, or street, travel. people?
If the answers are: images and portrait/landscape, go into medium format, if it is street/ travel, get back your M6. In both cases, think about the output - plan for buying an expensive scanner.
Jamie123
Veteran
No, actually it won't. It just seems that way because you need a longer lens for the same field of view and the longer the lens, the less DoF you get at a given aperture.
shadowfox
Darkroom printing lives
1) 12 picks in one tank compared to 72
2) I love my 5000 ED automatic film feed
3) The nr. of defects to remove with PS is proportional to negative size.
Just comparing notes, Roland.
1) 12 picks vs 24 or 36 picks, the ratio of keepers usually is the same. 72 is unusual, most people develop 1 roll in a tank.
2) I finish scanning 12 way faster than 36. Time vs quantity, it's a wash for me.
3) Ilford XP2 and Digital ICE is the answer
4) When it's time for darkroom, *nothing* beats a 6x4.5/6/7 for printing 11x14 or bigger. A few good squeeze of Giottos air blower on the negative and a diffuser color head. Spotting becomes simple after that
Phantomas
Well-known
You're right, if we use the math. But you know what I mean, if you shoot the same composition at the same aperture value you get shallower DOF. So I'd get similar FOV with 80mm on a Hassy as with roughly 50mm on 135, and 80 f/2.8 will give shallower DOF than 50 1.8. I remember the first time I shot my Rolleflex at f/3.5 with a close-up filter. Mama mia! Talk about paperthin DOF!
Phantomas
Well-known
Can you elaborate? I found ICE doesn't work with B&W. Something special about XP2?
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Corto
Well-known
If you want to experiment in MF, There are plenty of cheap basic cameras out there for you to mess around in. I love it, As I think its both fun and affordable.
I take my Agfa Isolette everywhere, As its very portable and pretty capable.
Isolette II, Portra 400.
I take my Agfa Isolette everywhere, As its very portable and pretty capable.
Isolette II, Portra 400.
ferider
Veteran
Just comparing notes, Roland.
1) 12 picks vs 24 or 36 picks, the ratio of keepers usually is the same. 72 is unusual, most people develop 1 roll in a tank.
2) I finish scanning 12 way faster than 36. Time vs quantity, it's a wash for me.
3) Ilford XP2 and Digital ICE is the answer
4) When it's time for darkroom, *nothing* beats a 6x4.5/6/7 for printing 11x14 or bigger. A few good squeeze of Giottos air blower on the negative and a diffuser color head. Spotting becomes simple after that
If I would print wet, I would probably shoot more 6x6, Will. But I lost that negotiation at home, when wanting to claim one of our bath rooms .....
PS: always wait until I have two rolls before developing ....
sevo
Fokutorendaburando
People that really need something generally have no doubt about that. So no, you don't need it - indeed, few photographs have ever failed because they were made on 35mm rather than a medium format camera. But what is wrong about liking or desiring it?