Reading mode: Light Dark

5D cause you to sell off medium format gear?

Go to last post
P

Phil Flash

Veteran Member
Messages
4,329
Reaction score
505
Location
San Francisco, CA, US
Just curious if owning the 5D made your medium format gear reduntant enough.

How does the quality of the 5D compare to 645 and 6x6 for you all?

--
Phil Flash
SF, CA USA
'Trust the 'kon!'

Stuff I own in my profile.
 
Phil Flash said:
Just curious if owning the 5D made your medium format gear
reduntant enough.

How does the quality of the 5D compare to 645 and 6x6 for you all?

--
Phil Flash
SF, CA USA
'Trust the 'kon!'

Stuff I own in my profile.
Click to expand...
I didn't sell off any--but ended up buying a 5D instead of a MF setup. I had looked at a number of used MF bodies and lenses last year and was sorely tempted with the prices dropping and such great quality in the used areas, but I held off--not sure exactly why because I was really serious about it. Then--the 5D was introduced and I decided to go that direction. I may still buy a used MF system one of these days---just because LOL.

Diane
--
Diane B
http://www.pbase.com/picnic/galleries
 
...the MF still will only get cheaper.

I just sold off a Pentax 645 and a Fuji GW690III. I may replace the Pentax one day. I really liked that one.

But I find that I use film only for B&W. It's too big of a pain to scan film.

And the 5D's low noise properties seem to open whole new worlds of night photography, interior photography, and low light photography in general.

Thanks for the feedback.

--
Phil Flash
SF, CA USA
'Trust the 'kon!'

Stuff I own in my profile.
 
I haven't yet sold my RZ's but I'm not likely to be using them much.

I like the bazookas, though. Real manly man cameras---aarr, arrr, arrr. I'm kind of hoping I can keep them for a medium format digital back one day.

Scanning film sucks. Scanning film sucks worse than processing E-6 in a gas station bathroom. Well, maybe not that bad, but close. Sending film out to be scanned sucks.

A pure digital workflow is so smooth.

--
RDKirk
'TANSTAAFL: The only unbreakable rule in photography.'
 
Phil Flash said:
Just curious if owning the 5D made your medium format gear
reduntant enough.
Click to expand...
But my 645 lenses work as shift lenses on the 5D, and so won't be sold.
Phil Flash said:
How does the quality of the 5D compare to 645 and 6x6 for you all?
Click to expand...
IMHO, the 5D is very close to 645, but 6x7 clearly edges it out, so I will not be selling my Mamiya 7.

--
David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan
 
The 5D and all the awesome lenses with IS, TS-E and the luscious 85mm1.2 are all the reasons I need to really connect with what i envision in my mind with what ends up on my image. With RAW you can really pull every once of detail of you know what you are doing. Not sure I want to says it beats me medium format I sold but I can tell you my 5D is not in a closet collecting dust.
Phil Flash said:
Just curious if owning the 5D made your medium format gear
reduntant enough.

How does the quality of the 5D compare to 645 and 6x6 for you all?

--
Phil Flash
SF, CA USA
'Trust the 'kon!'

Stuff I own in my profile.
Click to expand...
 
You're rightl. As many issues as I have with my D100, it does not collect dust. Sadly the Pentax 645 would go unused for two or three months at a time. The Fuji GW690 would go unused for a month, too.

But I have one last medium format that I will hang onto -- a Minolta Autocord TLR. I wouldn't get much money for it, it's lightweight, and it delivers great b&w negs. My Nikon FM and 45mm 2.8 pancake lens still gets a roll of Tri-X run through it once a week just from being in my laptop bag as I trudge around San Francisco.

Just a few more ebay sales of photo gear and it's 5D time. I think the Canon FF cameras are the first digitals (besides those funky medium format backs) that truly allow people not to look back. The D100 made me wish for my stolen F100. I can't wait for a 35mm lens to be 35mm again.

Solid mechanical film cameras have a way of getting into your hands and your heart, and it makes it hard to let them go. These are the '68 Mustang Fastbacks of cameras, I guess. You know you need a Honda Accord, but... but...

I don't detest my D100, but I don't think I'll shed a tear when it's gone. Tunnel viewfinder. Lack of metering with my old AI Nikkors. Large amount of PP work needed...

When I get the 5D, I know Canon will release a cheaper updated one two months afterwards. Oh well. I will build a lens collection that I know will be a lifetime investment (unlike DX lenses) and that will give me comfort.

Soon, guys, soon.

--
Phil Flash
SF, CA USA
'Trust the 'kon!'

Stuff I own in my profile.
 
Once I started shooting and accomplishing what I love to do it was really an afterthought selling the medium format. I make a living with my cameras and I work for someone else most of the time. When it is my personal time, the 5D and it's extensive lenses lets me turn my photography back into an enjoyable and soul enriching hobby it used to be. I almost feel like a kid again picking up my first camera with the thirst to seek out images again.
Phil Flash said:
You're rightl. As many issues as I have with my D100, it does not
collect dust. Sadly the Pentax 645 would go unused for two or
three months at a time. The Fuji GW690 would go unused for a
month, too.

But I have one last medium format that I will hang onto -- a
Minolta Autocord TLR. I wouldn't get much money for it, it's
lightweight, and it delivers great b&w negs. My Nikon FM and 45mm
2.8 pancake lens still gets a roll of Tri-X run through it once a
week just from being in my laptop bag as I trudge around San
Francisco.

Just a few more ebay sales of photo gear and it's 5D time. I think
the Canon FF cameras are the first digitals (besides those funky
medium format backs) that truly allow people not to look back. The
D100 made me wish for my stolen F100. I can't wait for a 35mm lens
to be 35mm again.

Solid mechanical film cameras have a way of getting into your hands
and your heart, and it makes it hard to let them go. These are the
'68 Mustang Fastbacks of cameras, I guess. You know you need a
Honda Accord, but... but...

I don't detest my D100, but I don't think I'll shed a tear when
it's gone. Tunnel viewfinder. Lack of metering with my old AI
Nikkors. Large amount of PP work needed...

When I get the 5D, I know Canon will release a cheaper updated one
two months afterwards. Oh well. I will build a lens collection
that I know will be a lifetime investment (unlike DX lenses) and
that will give me comfort.

Soon, guys, soon.

--
Phil Flash
SF, CA USA
'Trust the 'kon!'

Stuff I own in my profile.
Click to expand...
 
645 is about all I need.

I am pained at parting with my Fuji GW690III though. I shot one last roll with it today.
--
Phil Flash
SF, CA USA
'Trust the 'kon!'

Stuff I own in my profile.
 
Phil Flash said:
645 is about all I need.

I am pained at parting with my Fuji GW690III though. I shot one
last roll with it today.
Click to expand...
How much do you want for it, if you haven't found a home yet???

--
David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan
 
Thanks, but it has already found a home. I practically begged the guy who bought it from the auction site to cancel the deal. But a deal is a deal.

--
Phil Flash
SF, CA USA
'Trust the 'kon!'

Stuff I own in my profile.
 
I caught your waver on the Nikon forum, and thought you might end up going with the Nikon interface!
--
Regards,
DaveMart

'Just a wildebeast on the plain of life'
Please see profile for equipment
 
When the cameras are not in hand, I like the 5d.

When I put the camera in my hand, the D200 seduces me.

But FF and high ISO capability makes my head rule my heart.

I just can't get over the idea that my beloved Nikon lenses are not really the same lenses on a DX body.

They say bodies come and go, but glass is the real investment. I just don't feel comfortable investing in DX lenses knowing that at some point Nikon will go FF and I'll want that FF body and my $1,200 17-55DX will be useless.

I'd rather buy a 24-70L and know once I own it, it'll perform the same way on every Canon body I own in the future.

Plus, one could buy a 12-24 Sigma and have it actually be 12-24, unlike the DX Nikon 12-24, which would function as an 18-36.

Hey, I could pick up a D200 body and change my mind, but FF and noiseless lowlight shooting is a-calling.

--
Phil Flash
SF, CA USA
'Trust the 'kon!'

Stuff I own in my profile.
 
No, but the 20D did.

I sold all my film based gear last yer including a comprehensive set of Hasselblad gear as well as a more than complete set of Pentax 24*36. Reason: I never really made it with color in my own darkroom. I didn't use BW so much anymore, so chemicals and papers were out of date before being used. What really made the flip was that my trusted developer of E6 based films stopped his own processing and started to send my films on a long travel with poor results.

I choose Canon based on the lens performance of this brand that I have seen in my Photo Club. The 20D did well, even better than my Hasselblad, as I had no access to a professional film scanner, only the Epson flatbed substitute.

I have now added a 5D to my gear. Use of this camera reminds me of the days of the Hasselblad. Thanks to the bright viewfinder I get the same feeling when carefully composing the picture. Not to mention the quality of the results. The real benefit of going digital is getting rid of the limitation of number of shots and cost of using film. With the Hasselblad I had 12 chances on each film. Going digital I often uses 12 shots of the same situation.
--
Stads
 
I guess it depends what you want from your images. Certainly some MF does still produce images that offer 'more' than even the higher MP DSLR's.

For me, I simply enjoy using digital and haven't shot any film, including MF for... can't remember when. There's also the cost of drum scans if you produce a fair few images.

I did buy an adaptor for my 1Ds to use a Zuiko 21 and some Zeiss and Leica glass on it when I felt some of my Canon glass (decent L's) suffered in the corners or had too much CA (yes you can PP some of it out).

There's an interesting article here by Michael Reichmann: http://luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/digital-view.shtml

It's only money... ;-).
 
"Not sure I want to says it beats me medium format I sold but I can tell you my 5D is not in a closet collecting dust."

I use my two every day and they collect dust equally as well as they would in a closet, particularly the viewfinder. ;-))))
 
Lookin at raw detail, 645 and 5D are similar with the nod (imho) to the 645. I still much prefer the 6x7 format - better detail.

Otherwise - the image "quality, ethos, feel, sensation etc" of film and digital are different - not better/worse - just different. It is similar to the difference in shooting Agfa and Kodak old style negatives or transparency in terms of the degree of difference - both excellent but different.
--
tony
http://www.tphoto.ca
 
tony field said:
Lookin at raw detail, 645 and 5D are similar with the nod (imho) to
the 645. I still much prefer the 6x7 format - better detail.
Click to expand...
But a lot more effort. For one thing, it takes very high level scans with my 6x7, which means first getting lower-level "proof" scans of the entire take, then getting high-res scans of the selections. It's a very convoluted process for a very small difference in quality.

I expect that by August, 6x7 film will be at its end for me. I'll still be shooting some 4x5...but I've seen some dynamite 30x40 blowups from an Aptus 75 that make me drool. If I could afford two Aptus 75 backs, my 4x5 would be up for sale.

--
RDKirk
'TANSTAAFL: The only unbreakable rule in photography.'
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top