UKC

I sent a version of this email to Gordon Stainforth but he is seemingly too busy discussing existentialism and the creation of life at present so I wonder if anyone else can help me....


I'm looking at getting into large/medium format
photography, and wondered if anyone here had much experience. I have about £500 to spend. This would mainly be for landscapes, but some of the medium format options look suitable for climbing photography too. I have been looking at the Mamiya 645(cant afford the PRO for 500), the Fuji 645zi and for large format the Wista 45 range and a Sinar F1. Having used most of these do you have any
recommendations?

Also, I have seen some climbing photos that have
been shot with medium or large format cameras. Shooting with 35mm on abseil is straightforward as you can get fast shutter speeds, but how do you go about using medium/large format cameras on ropes, problems with mirror flap etc.....heavy tripods balanced against the rock sounds a big step up from dangling with a 35mm camera

Obviously I would use google, but there isnt much on using
medium format or bigger for climbing photography, any
advice would be most helpful. I know a little bit about rope stuff so any rigging tips would never go amiss

Thanks very much

Drav

In reply to Dr Avid:

simon c who posts on here would be a good person to talk to (as the most conspicuous user of medium/large format cameras); might be worth dropping him a line?

In reply to Dr Avid: i have a fuji 6 x 9 great for hill use its a rangefinder type and u can ussualy pic 1 up from a well known auction site, the slides are stunning off it , examples on my photo gallery , but iam not good at photo editing so they may not be good examples

In reply to Dr Avid:

I'm bemused by the benefits of medium format photography in this age of very sharp 35mm lenses, high quality scanners and 10mp plus dslrs it is easy to out resolve the dot pitch needed to print at A3+

medium format only seems to be relevant for looking at very large prints close up, eg the Cloggy picture in Ynws Ettws, and how oftern do we do prints that large?. And to compare results on a 800 x 600 pixel screen image seems daft.

As far as I can see, the only benefit of medium format these days is the amount of time and effort needed to set up a shot makes you take extra care to ensure you get it right.

In reply to kevin stephens:

'medium format only seems to be relevant for looking at very large prints close up, eg the Cloggy picture in Ynws Ettws'

Exactly, The benefit is Quality.

In reply to Dr Avid:

Kevin does have a point and to truly get much better quality than you can get with a good DSLR set-up I'd suggest by-passing medium format altogether and going straight to 5x4". You can get Sinar or similar press cameras off eBay for your budget and apart from the obvious film handling differences they are pretty much as convenient as a large SLR

Alternatively, a much cheaper way into 'big' medium format are the older 6x6 or 6x9 folding cameras by Voigtlander et al, many available on eBay at very low prices even for very good or reconditioned ones, they're very compact indeed, light, and easy to use if you're happy with manual cameras

Then again I always fancied a Hasselblad SWC...

Ian

In reply to Dr Avid:

Have emailed you.
Gordon

In reply to Dr Avid:

Sod 5x4

Get a 10x8!

Pricey mind you.

Tom

In reply to Dr Avid:


Invest the £500 in a decent Multi Row Pano set up (e.g. by Really Right Stuff) and you'll get more Image Quality than you'll know what to do with. Recently took a 43 image pano up at Stanage using a 50mm f1.4, which came out the equivalent of a 365 MP camera (25,000 x 14,600 pixels).

That would print at over eight feet wide at 240 dpi.

Is that big enough for you?

In reply to ChrisJD: Ye that does look a good option for landscapes.....can you use grad filters with that kind of head?

In reply to Dr Avid:

I use a RRS BH-55-PCL

http://www.reallyrightstuff.com/ballheads/index.html

With Camera L Plate and a multi-row Omni-Pivot Package:

http://www.reallyrightstuff.com/pano/index.html

In reply to Dr Avid:

why not go the whole way?

how about one of these
http://www.nrw.qld.gov.au/museum/articles_complete/images/hunter_penrose.jp...
or this
http://robroy.dyndns.info/lawrence/mammoth.html

In reply to kevin stephens: I thought the same until recently, I have looked at an a3+ print of the same waterfall taken on home made 5x4 and nikon d80, the large format is exquisit, MILES sharper, better contrast, no blurring of shadow detail, it looks like a gallery quality print (as it should) the d80 in comparrison looked naff, I am thinking of trying MF/LF myself when I get a bit more time.

In reply to ICE: I agree....digital is ace but has a way to go yet compared to 5x4. However, Chris's system looks pretty good too.....


Gordon, I have emailed you again, check your junk

In reply to Dr Avid:

Yes, thanks, I was out, and have only just seen it. May reply later tonight.

In reply to ICE:


But was the Nikon pic taken using a tripod and pro lens in raw format and carefully processed with a good Raw converter? Were both prints produced on the same printer?

I still believe that these factors can make much more difference than format size

In reply to kevin stephens: yes kevin they were, not to diss dgital too much though, I love it for its immediacy, but in the hands of a 'craftsman' 5x4 takes some beating. However, it has made me want to push my ability with digital and see if I can get somewhere close.

In reply to ICE:

Interesting, I still have a hankering after a Pentax 6x7 setup (with a large format scanner)when/if I ever get the time

In reply to Dr Avid: £500 would get you some quality old-school glass in the form of a Rolleiflex TLR! You'd get a good one for that, and have money left for some filters. They're still such incredible cameras, decades after they were made! Don't know what it'd be like to rig... maybe quite awkward to reload a roll if the thing is strapped to you some way.

In reply to Dr Avid: This setup is way beyond your budget, but the article does describe some of the advantages of large format - http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/digital-ebony.shtml

In reply to Dr Avid:
We use a canon 5D & its good, but our imacon 1 shot used on the hassleblad system is better, the imacon 4 shot blows it away, especially with digitar lenses. but the Betterlight scanback on the sinar is better still. Horses for courses.
ANY medium format digital back and/or expertly scanned film is better than any dslr single frame.
If you do go the MF film route you will have get a very good scanner to reveal the quality so factor that in to the cost.
Don't get misled into thinking that the kit will automatically make you a better photographer.

Thanks for all the advice, as usual asking questions on here just leads to a thousand others.....might stick with digital until I know a bit more about this....

In reply to Dr Avid: thats what I'm going to do as well, still have a lot to learn ref exposure, composition, at least digital lets you learn without the expense of developing, and I get similar resolution from my 30d at A4 as by friend does at A3+ and beyond with his 5x4.

In reply to Dr Avid:

I use a Mamiya 645 proTL for climbing stuff regularly, I think Ray Wood has the same. It handles very well, much like a big 35mm manual slr, obviously you need to be confident in manual focus & exposure.

Even though 645 is the smallest format above 35mm the quality difference is easy to see, in definition and smoothness of tones.

Scanning is a problem/ expense, I have mine done by a guy in Sheffield with an Imacon Flextight, works out ~£12 a pop. The scans far out resolve the 10mp files from my Nikon D200, (which in turn out resolves 35mm velvia, just) and I prefer the look as far as colour and contrast go. Obviously with a RAW file a similar look is always achievable, but its hard work. A big plus is having the transparency as a reference point.

I'd like to have a go with large format, however I think the speed of set-up and slow shutter speeds would make it a pain for climbing photography.

With larger formats, a big benefit is the reduced depth of field which makes it much easier to draw attention to subjects. A lot of my favourite shots are taken at f2-4 with the standard 80mm lens. It gives a look very difficult to acheive with smaller formats. With wider shots the depth of field can be restrictive though, you usually end up with a shutter speed that requires a tripod and a pause from the climber.

I use Velvia a lot but the bigger area means you can get away with 100 and up films without grain being an issue, especially the newer ones.

As for working on ropes, easiest method is usually a low-stretch rope with a grigri and a handles ascender with a footloop. If you're doing a lot its worth making or buying a workseat. Petzl do very nice ones, but a plank will suffice.
If you want to use a tripod, use the cavers technique of tensioning the tripod centre to a bolt or gear. Can't say I've ever bothered though, just handhold.

In reply to Dr Avid: I've got a Zenza Bronica which I picked up on the internet for about 300 EUR a couple of years ago. The quality is notably better than 35mm or my compact digital (Canon G7) - especially in b&W. I haven't done a fair comparison vs dslr.

In terms of handling, though, I haven't had a problem at all. I don't do climbing photography but I do quite a bit of street photography and it handles pretty much like a big slr. I find the extra weight can actually help get a sharp image and using it hand-held have been able to go to slower shutter speeds without getting blur than I could with my film slr.

In reply to Dr Avid:

I've carted a Mamiya RB67 around a bit this winter with Ilford PanF (50 asa) and the results are awesome. (the neg size is about half 5x4) If you looking at producing stunning prints on lush fibre paper its the way to go. Get a Linhof you know it makes sense!

In reply to Dr Avid: A good compromise would be the Mamiya 6 or 7 'folding' medium format cameras. Great quality, but more portable, and quicker to use compared to LF or a medium format SLR.