rphenning
Established
"why don't you keep the m4?"
because I'm not into 35mm negatives. There's not enough information for me. Color looks bad in my opinion too and I like doing color. Im not sentimental about cameras at all. I've only been doing this for like 2 years, Im still trying to find something I am comfortable with. I've gotten the highest end digital kit you can get and I hated it, so digital is off the list, back to film. 35mm is great but the negatives are too small, so 35mm is off. I love LF negatives but it isn't easy to carry around, so MF is a bingo! (inglorious basterds?)
Anyways, I saved up a bunch of money from 3 jobs for an entire year when I was 17 so I am just trying to find something to get happy with with that money. The Leica is rad, no doubt, but 35mm, to me, is snapshotty.
because I'm not into 35mm negatives. There's not enough information for me. Color looks bad in my opinion too and I like doing color. Im not sentimental about cameras at all. I've only been doing this for like 2 years, Im still trying to find something I am comfortable with. I've gotten the highest end digital kit you can get and I hated it, so digital is off the list, back to film. 35mm is great but the negatives are too small, so 35mm is off. I love LF negatives but it isn't easy to carry around, so MF is a bingo! (inglorious basterds?)
Anyways, I saved up a bunch of money from 3 jobs for an entire year when I was 17 so I am just trying to find something to get happy with with that money. The Leica is rad, no doubt, but 35mm, to me, is snapshotty.
rphenning
Established
Oh and the notion of bokeh is ridiculous. I don't care what it looks like, it's out of focus. That and I can't stand the over usage of that word. Like "HDR". bleh.
craygc
Well-known
Most poster seem to say that for what their type of work, MF is like 35mm, just better.
For quickly moving, fast pace PJ style, nothing beats 35mm, with its small size, fast glass and high autonomy (well, please don't compare to digital).
IMHO, they are kings in different areas.
I think it's usefull to have both, but if I have to chose only one, it would be 35mm...
just my 2 shekels
Absolutely agree with this... for me they are each for different purposes, and the Mamiya RF - although better than a comparable SLR - is not a fast pace , PJ style camera. To me, the Mamiya and Leica are complements without much overlap ...the bigger format wont necessarily make the photo any better
rphenning
Established
And I don't disagree with you either. Im not looking for a camera that will make me the next nachtwey. I prefer to be super picky and take one frame instead of a burst of frames of the same thing. The size of the negative improves the quality a lot which is what I am looking for. The composition and color work is my own skill that will be honed with time and comfort
edit: and holy **** your photos are good ^^
edit: and holy **** your photos are good ^^
Frank Petronio
Well-known
Well if you're that fussy then man up and go get yourself an 8x10 and stop compromising, kiddo...
Last edited:
rphenning
Established
because an 8x10 is a lot more portable than the 4x5 I already have.
maddoc
... likes film again.
Just two days ago I received a Bronica RF645 to play with for a couple of days. I usually only take photos at night, using a Leica, fast lenses and 400ISO film as standard. The maximum aperture of f/4.0 is quite limiting but the camera is very heavy and I have tried a couple of shots at 1/20s since I received the camera. I also have used my Rolleiflex occasionally at night with 1600ISO film and managed some OK shots but focusing was a big problem for me.
Since I like the square format a lot, a Mamiya 6 or better 7 is still tempting for me ....
Since I like the square format a lot, a Mamiya 6 or better 7 is still tempting for me ....
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Dear Frank,Well if you're that fussy then man up and go get yourself an 8x10 and stop compromising, kiddo...
Ten-eight is OK for everyday but you want somethng a decent size for real photography -- like my 12x15 Gandolfi.That's over twice the area of 8x10...
Cheers,
R.
Merkin
For the Weekend
A couple of questions about your "style of shooting"- Are you referring mainly to rangefinder focusing, or the aspects of the style of leica shooting more directly related to small size and/or sneakiness? Keep in mind that while it does rangefinder focus, it handles more like a pro SLR with motor drive, because of its size. It is not a small camera. If you are looking for a small size with medium format, consider either the Bessa III or a well-CLA'ed older folder, or a TLR like a Rolleiflex. If you sold your Leica and lens, you could easily afford a really nice Rolleiflex with a 2.8 Planar, with build quality comparable to your Leica, and an image quality to size ratio that MIGHT be unmatched in medium format.
rphenning
Established
rangefinder focusing. I'm not really too worried about people noticing me or not. I'll still take a photo if I like the light, ya know?
sanmich
Veteran
And I don't disagree with you either. Im not looking for a camera that will make me the next nachtwey. I prefer to be super picky and take one frame instead of a burst of frames of the same thing. The size of the negative improves the quality a lot which is what I am looking for. The composition and color work is my own skill that will be honed with time and comfort
edit: and holy **** your photos are good ^^
You can be super picky, hyper picky, mega picky if you are after static subjects.
For dynamic subjects, shooting with a larger format and shorter autonomy will either bring you lots of fustration, or I'll have to salute the new genius of photography that is able, in one shot alone to grab exactly the right movement at the right moment.
Even HCB burned a lot of film, and I'm sure you could argue that his portraits could have been better in 4x5.
Or not...
Again, sometimes a large neg is completely irrelevant.
That being said, if YOUR type of photography requires it, well by all means....
But MF is not necessarily better than 35mm. To each task its tools. No magic bullet, sorry...
rphenning
Established
Not looking for a magic bullet, no worries. Just looking to get comfortable with something. I think each person (not to sound vain, I'm just a kid who likes photos, but anyways) has their preference based on what they are comfortable with physically and with what the return is. In the case of cameras, I am comfortable with a big obvious camera with me, and I prefer the look of big film negs over digital or 35mm. If I wanted to shoot 35mm I would just get a 5d II and be done with it. Or build an 8x10 point and shoot like frank said I should do.
sanmich
Veteran
I would just get a 5d II and be done with it. .
Now digital is necesaarily better than 35mm... oh well...
rphenning
Established
what do you mean
emraphoto
Veteran
Not looking for a magic bullet, no worries. Just looking to get comfortable with something. I think each person (not to sound vain, I'm just a kid who likes photos, but anyways) has their preference based on what they are comfortable with physically and with what the return is. In the case of cameras, I am comfortable with a big obvious camera with me, and I prefer the look of big film negs over digital or 35mm. If I wanted to shoot 35mm I would just get a 5d II and be done with it. Or build an 8x10 point and shoot like frank said I should do.
if you are after the mamiya 7 i doubt you will be disappointed. i happen to shoot a lot of dynamic subject matter and have little problem with the 7. it is an excellent documentary camera in my books.
it is not really that big. compared to a 1d or d3 it's downright miniscule!
sanmich
Veteran
Sory for the sarcastic tone.
I mean that you seem to dismiss the thought that 35mm is a viable option, and a good tool, which, IMHO, is a mistake.
I mean that you seem to dismiss the thought that 35mm is a viable option, and a good tool, which, IMHO, is a mistake.
mrisney
Well-known
I spent a year trying different medium format camera's. The Mamiya 6, was the one that I kept. I like the square negatives, and the lenses are something rather special. The 150 is my least used lens, the 75mm I use for the majority of street shots, and impromptu candid's. I think you should keep your M4, the 2 really compliment each other, I have the M4-P, and with the 40mm Nokton I would never dream of parting with it - then again the M4-P is a modestly priced camera, and the Nokton Classic is not that expensive either, so unless it's a financial burden to have both, I say keep them both.
I would totally recommend the Mamiya 6 over the 7. It's just a cooler camera. I am sure Mamiya 7's would argue the same, but my hero's shot 6x6 and for medium format, in my opinion, that's a signature negative.
I would totally recommend the Mamiya 6 over the 7. It's just a cooler camera. I am sure Mamiya 7's would argue the same, but my hero's shot 6x6 and for medium format, in my opinion, that's a signature negative.
rphenning
Established
Sory for the sarcastic tone.
I mean that you seem to dismiss the thought that 35mm is a viable option, and a good tool, which, IMHO, is a mistake.
nah no need to apologize. I get what you are saying, 35mm is definitely a solid tool for photography. I'm just exploring what I think what would work better for my style of shooting.
And that is good to know about the size. I had a 1d3 and that think was practical joke big.
edodo
Well-known
"It is more important to click with people than to click the shutter!". Alfred Eisenstaedt
The camera is not that important after all. You know...
But if you are on a budget, lots of detail has to be taken under considerations like price, portability, system expendability. If you can only afford one camera at this time... I would buy every camera listed in this thread if money wasn't such a big deal.
I chose rolleiflex because I don't need a complexe system and for the size weight and silence. Your needs may differ!
Pentax 6x7 should be good for you I think, because there are marvelous lenses and the cam look big and vintage! I have saw youngters shooting with this big camera and they looked so cool!
Mamiya 6 can be an excellent system but I find it a little paradoxal. While you have the nice large negs, you cannot look at the drawing of the DOF like the big chambers and the SLR's.
But I dream to have one some time in the future!
If you buy used at a reasonnable price you will have no problem selling it to try other system!
The rolleicord advice was to access the goodness of the system for not too much.
Maybe even an hasseblad system would be good for you... You only knows!
The camera is not that important after all. You know...
But if you are on a budget, lots of detail has to be taken under considerations like price, portability, system expendability. If you can only afford one camera at this time... I would buy every camera listed in this thread if money wasn't such a big deal.
I chose rolleiflex because I don't need a complexe system and for the size weight and silence. Your needs may differ!
Pentax 6x7 should be good for you I think, because there are marvelous lenses and the cam look big and vintage! I have saw youngters shooting with this big camera and they looked so cool!
Mamiya 6 can be an excellent system but I find it a little paradoxal. While you have the nice large negs, you cannot look at the drawing of the DOF like the big chambers and the SLR's.
But I dream to have one some time in the future!
If you buy used at a reasonnable price you will have no problem selling it to try other system!
The rolleicord advice was to access the goodness of the system for not too much.
Maybe even an hasseblad system would be good for you... You only knows!
Last edited:
chipgreenberg
Well-known
Image quality, build quality
Image quality, build quality
You'll certainly appreciate medium format image quality..especially on prints over 8x10. I have some really nice 16x20's that make me smile from a Contax G, but the reality is bigger is better if you are making prints. I shot commercially for a while and we ever used 35mm. 120 was our portable, people format.
I shot a lot if film with an RZ 67. I traded my Hasselblads for a mamiya RZ67 at one point. We always cropped the 6x6 so the RZ gave me bigger film and the lenses were great. The shutter was electronic and I also got tired of spending a fortune to CLA the blads every couple years. The RZ felt awful after the blad. I love that "chiseled out of a piece of swiss titanium" feel. But never had anything break on the RZ and put thousands of rolls of film through it. Based on that I'm in the "feels plasticky but works great" camp when it comes to Mamiya
Image quality, build quality
You'll certainly appreciate medium format image quality..especially on prints over 8x10. I have some really nice 16x20's that make me smile from a Contax G, but the reality is bigger is better if you are making prints. I shot commercially for a while and we ever used 35mm. 120 was our portable, people format.
I shot a lot if film with an RZ 67. I traded my Hasselblads for a mamiya RZ67 at one point. We always cropped the 6x6 so the RZ gave me bigger film and the lenses were great. The shutter was electronic and I also got tired of spending a fortune to CLA the blads every couple years. The RZ felt awful after the blad. I love that "chiseled out of a piece of swiss titanium" feel. But never had anything break on the RZ and put thousands of rolls of film through it. Based on that I'm in the "feels plasticky but works great" camp when it comes to Mamiya
Share:
-
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.