Medium Format vs. Full Frame Locked

Started 4 months ago | Discussions
This thread is locked.
thebbqguy
thebbqguy Regular Member • Posts: 241
Medium Format vs. Full Frame

I like the idea of medium format and I drool over Clyde Butcher's landscapes. The medium format digital cameras are beyond my desired budget, but a used film camera seems like a viable consideration.

To this point I have kept my photography budget purposely conservative and dont see that changing in the near term.

Should I investigate medium format film or hold out for a full frame?

-- hide signature --

I learned a long time ago to stop trying to do what others do, because they're good at it. -- Do what you're good at. (B.B. King)

JimKasson
JimKasson Forum Pro • Posts: 28,168
Re: Medium Format vs. Full Frame

thebbqguy wrote:

I like the idea of medium format and I drool over Clyde Butcher's landscapes. The medium format digital cameras are beyond my desired budget, but a used film camera seems like a viable consideration.

To this point I have kept my photography budget purposely conservative and dont see that changing in the near term.

Should I investigate medium format film or hold out for a full frame?

Butcher uses (or used) film cameras from 4x5 through 12x20. I don't think he ever used medium format film.

-- hide signature --
 JimKasson's gear list:JimKasson's gear list
Nikon D5 Sony a7 III Nikon Z7 Fujifilm GFX 100 Sony a7R IV +2 more
Macro guy
Macro guy Veteran Member • Posts: 4,556
Re: Medium Format vs. Full Frame

thebbqguy wrote:

I like the idea of medium format and I drool over Clyde Butcher's landscapes. The medium format digital cameras are beyond my desired budget, but a used film camera seems like a viable consideration.

To this point I have kept my photography budget purposely conservative and dont see that changing in the near term.

Should I investigate medium format film or hold out for a full frame?

How big are you going to print?

A 50mp digital camera (of any format) can be printed to about the same size, with the same quality as a 6x7 camera.  Furthermore, given that practically no one ever prints chemically anymore, your film images are going to be digitized anyway and printed on an inket printer.  Therefore, it makes no sense to shoot film if you're looking to get a 20x30 print at 300dpi.

As far as budget is concerned, you can pick up a Sony A7RII, a Canon 5DS r for around $1500.

If you're going to shoot film, you also have to factor in the costs of film and processing.  A roll of 120 film, which will produce 10 shots on a 6x7, 12 shots on a 6x6 or 15 shots on a 645 will run you $5.  You'll pay another $5-$10 to process, then you'll pay $25 PER FRAME to scan and whatever your printing costs are going to be.

So, when you start factoring in all the hidden costs, the money saved on a film camera doesn't seem as such a bargain anymore.

 Macro guy's gear list:Macro guy's gear list
Canon EOS 5D Mark II Canon EF 50mm F1.8 II +5 more
JohnS59 Regular Member • Posts: 349
Re: Medium Format vs. Full Frame

Macro guy wrote:

thebbqguy wrote:

I like the idea of medium format and I drool over Clyde Butcher's landscapes. The medium format digital cameras are beyond my desired budget, but a used film camera seems like a viable consideration.

To this point I have kept my photography budget purposely conservative and dont see that changing in the near term.

Should I investigate medium format film or hold out for a full frame?

How big are you going to print?

A 50mp digital camera (of any format) can be printed to about the same size, with the same quality as a 6x7 camera. Furthermore, given that practically no one ever prints chemically anymore, your film images are going to be digitized anyway and printed on an inket printer. Therefore, it makes no sense to shoot film if you're looking to get a 20x30 print at 300dpi.

As far as budget is concerned, you can pick up a Sony A7RII, a Canon 5DS r for around $1500.

If you're going to shoot film, you also have to factor in the costs of film and processing. A roll of 120 film, which will produce 10 shots on a 6x7, 12 shots on a 6x6 or 15 shots on a 645 will run you $5. You'll pay another $5-$10 to process, then you'll pay $25 PER FRAME to scan and whatever your printing costs are going to be.

So, when you start factoring in all the hidden costs, the money saved on a film camera doesn't seem as such a bargain anymore.

I am the proud owner of a Pentax 67II analogue system (6x7cm) and a high quality MF filmscanner (no drum scanner though). I also have a Fujifilm APS-C sytem (24 MP). Even APS-C is far better in terms of resolution than is possible with this analogue system and a film like Ilford Pan F. Even when I bypass the scanner and print myself with the Leitz Focomat IIc.

The lenses are not that sharp too, measured to current standards.

I still like the analogue system, especially for B&W architecture, but for landscape I don't see any benefits. And I didn't even talk about FF.

So the best way is to go digital, be it APS-C or FF.

John.

 JohnS59's gear list:JohnS59's gear list
Fujifilm XF 14mm F2.8 R Fujifilm FinePix X100 Fujifilm X-T1 Fujifilm X-H1 Fujifilm XF 35mm F1.4 R +8 more
Hiphopapotamus Senior Member • Posts: 1,175
Re: Medium Format vs. Full Frame

Medium format is cheap, you can get a Mamiya Universal, or a Fuji GL690, or even GX680 for not much more than $500 with a wide-angle lens if landscape is your thing. Modern film is cheap also... A pro pack of Ektar 100 or Portra 160 will cost you $50 or less... Development at a pro lab with full sized scans $30 or so, and then across 8 shots that'll be about $3/$4 a shot...

If you don't develop it yourself...

Resolution wise... You can have 4800ppi or even 7200ppi.

Modern film like Ektar 100 and Portra 160 has far less grain then you would care to imagine. 400 speed film will give you the same amount of grain as roughly ISO1600... and 800 3200...

I would stay away from shooting slides these days, apart from the fact that the grain structure of old slide formats like Velvia 50 are crap... You can get better results with Ektar 100 to be honest and anyway slides are getting hard to develop these days with what's going on with Kodak's suppliers...

You can get results on 6x9 as good as anything on digital the results will just have that film look. You will either love it or hate it, but you won't know without trying.
Roll film is much more convenient than sheet film. I wouldn't even look at sheet film if you're a newbie.

Print it, don't look at the pixels, print it on glass, print it on aluminum, print it on resin, then light it properly and you will love it.

 Hiphopapotamus's gear list:Hiphopapotamus's gear list
Olympus OM-D E-M5 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 9-18mm F4.0-5.6 Panasonic Lumix G 20mm F1.7 ASPH Olympus M.Zuiko Digital 45mm F1.8 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 12mm 1:2 +5 more
Hiphopapotamus Senior Member • Posts: 1,175
Re: Medium Format vs. Full Frame

Macro guy wrote:

thebbqguy wrote:

I like the idea of medium format and I drool over Clyde Butcher's landscapes. The medium format digital cameras are beyond my desired budget, but a used film camera seems like a viable consideration.

To this point I have kept my photography budget purposely conservative and dont see that changing in the near term.

Should I investigate medium format film or hold out for a full frame?

How big are you going to print?

A 50mp digital camera (of any format) can be printed to about the same size, with the same quality as a 6x7 camera. Furthermore, given that practically no one ever prints chemically anymore, your film images are going to be digitized anyway and printed on an inket printer. Therefore, it makes no sense to shoot film if you're looking to get a 20x30 print at 300dpi.

As far as budget is concerned, you can pick up a Sony A7RII, a Canon 5DS r for around $1500.

If you're going to shoot film, you also have to factor in the costs of film and processing. A roll of 120 film, which will produce 10 shots on a 6x7, 12 shots on a 6x6 or 15 shots on a 645 will run you $5. You'll pay another $5-$10 to process, then you'll pay $25 PER FRAME to scan and whatever your printing costs are going to be.

So, when you start factoring in all the hidden costs, the money saved on a film camera doesn't seem as such a bargain anymore.

Umm you start at 4800 or even 7200dpi at the same pixel count and then you downsize to the print you want. Yeah...

You tell me how you're going to print that billboard at high resolution without a film camera without cheating and upscaling? Righto mate... To do the same job you could do at high resolution with film you end up going down to as low as 30dpi in sign printing.

As to lens resolution maybe, but when you consider the sensor size or film plate at 6x7 or 6x9 then it's not even a comparison. Not to APS-C or anything else this side of an A7 III and then you do the math on it, and add up the cost and its still far cheaper to shoot and develop film.

You can get a complete GL690 and lenses for under $500.

The real-world costs of film are about $3 - $4 a shot shooting slow film... You can buy Portra 800 or whatever at cost if you want it, but your gonna have grain coming out of your ears.

The problem is most people thought film was dead when the Canon 1D came out 20 years ago with a 10megapixel CCD sensor. But in the last 20 years film has changed a lot.

Ektar is a completely new stock and Portra uses Kodak Vision technology. With Portra you're getting the same resolution with a good lens as Holywood is getting for its latest films shot on film.

Once Upon a Time in Hollywood for instance which is predominately shot in Kodak Vision 3, although with Tarantino and his budget he shot just about every type of film in that movie that Kodak produced that you can still get developed.

You're getting a lot more resolution out of film and Porta and Ektar are good for 13 stops of light when scanned digitally.

It's not even the same conversation you were having 20 years ago when most people gave up film. Scanning technology has also greatly improved over the years also. Scanners benefit from CCD updates also (for all intents and purposes the same technology as digital cameras). The latest Epson home scanners such as the V800 are now rivaling what you can get from dedicated Noritsu film scanners.

It's not the same conversation at all... and you can save a lot of cost by learning how to develop yourself using a Jobo (Patterson) tank which is a lot easier than the old way of doing things in a tin can the way you would have done it 20 years or more ago...

 Hiphopapotamus's gear list:Hiphopapotamus's gear list
Olympus OM-D E-M5 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 9-18mm F4.0-5.6 Panasonic Lumix G 20mm F1.7 ASPH Olympus M.Zuiko Digital 45mm F1.8 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 12mm 1:2 +5 more
Hiphopapotamus Senior Member • Posts: 1,175
Re: Medium Format vs. Full Frame

JohnS59 wrote:

Macro guy wrote:

thebbqguy wrote:

I like the idea of medium format and I drool over Clyde Butcher's landscapes. The medium format digital cameras are beyond my desired budget, but a used film camera seems like a viable consideration.

To this point I have kept my photography budget purposely conservative and dont see that changing in the near term.

Should I investigate medium format film or hold out for a full frame?

How big are you going to print?

A 50mp digital camera (of any format) can be printed to about the same size, with the same quality as a 6x7 camera. Furthermore, given that practically no one ever prints chemically anymore, your film images are going to be digitized anyway and printed on an inket printer. Therefore, it makes no sense to shoot film if you're looking to get a 20x30 print at 300dpi.

As far as budget is concerned, you can pick up a Sony A7RII, a Canon 5DS r for around $1500.

If you're going to shoot film, you also have to factor in the costs of film and processing. A roll of 120 film, which will produce 10 shots on a 6x7, 12 shots on a 6x6 or 15 shots on a 645 will run you $5. You'll pay another $5-$10 to process, then you'll pay $25 PER FRAME to scan and whatever your printing costs are going to be.

So, when you start factoring in all the hidden costs, the money saved on a film camera doesn't seem as such a bargain anymore.

I am the proud owner of a Pentax 67II analogue system (6x7cm) and a high quality MF filmscanner (no drum scanner though). I also have a Fujifilm APS-C sytem (24 MP). Even APS-C is far better in terms of resolution than is possible with this analogue system and a film like Ilford Pan F. Even when I bypass the scanner and print myself with the Leitz Focomat IIc.

The lenses are not that sharp too, measured to current standards.

I still like the analogue system, especially for B&W architecture, but for landscape I don't see any benefits. And I didn't even talk about FF.

So the best way is to go digital, be it APS-C or FF.

John.

I don't have a lot of recent examples because, actually, I've been off exploring other things with my film shots, so it's a bit random at the moment. But I've been entertaining myself with my film shots rather than other people.

You can still get plenty of sharp shots... It's just going to look like film. It depends if you like the tones and colours of film and the way it reacts differently to colour and light than digital does.

Of course, I'm just recording what film stocks are out there and how they react for my own purposes at the moment, I'm not doing big panoramic landscapes, that's not to say you can't.

Film is always going to have that cinematic, or painters brush look to it. You may not like that, but it's organic, it's using emulsion. That's the very nature of film.

Fuji 400N (yes N to S) expired (2008) Scanned on a Noritsu Koki

Cinestill 800T (Tungsten film) scanned on a Fuji Frontier

Velvia 50 scanned on a Fuji Frontier.

Ektar 100 scanned on a Fuji Frontier

 Hiphopapotamus's gear list:Hiphopapotamus's gear list
Olympus OM-D E-M5 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 9-18mm F4.0-5.6 Panasonic Lumix G 20mm F1.7 ASPH Olympus M.Zuiko Digital 45mm F1.8 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 12mm 1:2 +5 more
Macro guy
Macro guy Veteran Member • Posts: 4,556
Re: Medium Format vs. Full Frame

Hiphopapotamus wrote:

Macro guy wrote:

thebbqguy wrote:

I like the idea of medium format and I drool over Clyde Butcher's landscapes. The medium format digital cameras are beyond my desired budget, but a used film camera seems like a viable consideration.

To this point I have kept my photography budget purposely conservative and dont see that changing in the near term.

Should I investigate medium format film or hold out for a full frame?

How big are you going to print?

A 50mp digital camera (of any format) can be printed to about the same size, with the same quality as a 6x7 camera. Furthermore, given that practically no one ever prints chemically anymore, your film images are going to be digitized anyway and printed on an inket printer. Therefore, it makes no sense to shoot film if you're looking to get a 20x30 print at 300dpi.

As far as budget is concerned, you can pick up a Sony A7RII, a Canon 5DS r for around $1500.

If you're going to shoot film, you also have to factor in the costs of film and processing. A roll of 120 film, which will produce 10 shots on a 6x7, 12 shots on a 6x6 or 15 shots on a 645 will run you $5. You'll pay another $5-$10 to process, then you'll pay $25 PER FRAME to scan and whatever your printing costs are going to be.

So, when you start factoring in all the hidden costs, the money saved on a film camera doesn't seem as such a bargain anymore.

Umm you start at 4800 or even 7200dpi at the same pixel count and then you downsize to the print you want. Yeah...

You tell me how you're going to print that billboard at high resolution without a film camera without cheating and upscaling? Righto mate... To do the same job you could do at high resolution with film you end up going down to as low as 30dpi in sign printing.

As to lens resolution maybe, but when you consider the sensor size or film plate at 6x7 or 6x9 then it's not even a comparison. Not to APS-C or anything else this side of an A7 III and then you do the math on it, and add up the cost and its still far cheaper to shoot and develop film.

You can get a complete GL690 and lenses for under $500.

The real-world costs of film are about $3 - $4 a shot shooting slow film... You can buy Portra 800 or whatever at cost if you want it, but your gonna have grain coming out of your ears.

I was a late comer to digital. I held out until 2012 because I didn't think that digital was there yet. However, digital came into its own around 10 years ago. My 20x30 inch prints made from my 20mp Canon 5d2 are on par with the same size prints I had made with my Mamiya 645.

So, then what's the point of shooting film, going through the extra step of digitizing it and printing it with an inkjet printer? It just makes no sense. You'll get much cleaner files shooting digital to begin with. Furthermore,  at $4 per shot, not including a high res scan is quite expensive. Those dollars will quickly add up to consume any savings you might have had.

If you want to play with an old camera and if you want to play with film development, that's fine, but I would never recommend a film camera to someone on a tight budget or to someone looking to print moderately large.

 Macro guy's gear list:Macro guy's gear list
Canon EOS 5D Mark II Canon EF 50mm F1.8 II +5 more
Hiphopapotamus Senior Member • Posts: 1,175
Re: Medium Format vs. Full Frame

Macro guy wrote:

Hiphopapotamus wrote:

Macro guy wrote:

thebbqguy wrote:

I like the idea of medium format and I drool over Clyde Butcher's landscapes. The medium format digital cameras are beyond my desired budget, but a used film camera seems like a viable consideration.

To this point I have kept my photography budget purposely conservative and dont see that changing in the near term.

Should I investigate medium format film or hold out for a full frame?

How big are you going to print?

A 50mp digital camera (of any format) can be printed to about the same size, with the same quality as a 6x7 camera. Furthermore, given that practically no one ever prints chemically anymore, your film images are going to be digitized anyway and printed on an inket printer. Therefore, it makes no sense to shoot film if you're looking to get a 20x30 print at 300dpi.

As far as budget is concerned, you can pick up a Sony A7RII, a Canon 5DS r for around $1500.

If you're going to shoot film, you also have to factor in the costs of film and processing. A roll of 120 film, which will produce 10 shots on a 6x7, 12 shots on a 6x6 or 15 shots on a 645 will run you $5. You'll pay another $5-$10 to process, then you'll pay $25 PER FRAME to scan and whatever your printing costs are going to be.

So, when you start factoring in all the hidden costs, the money saved on a film camera doesn't seem as such a bargain anymore.

Umm you start at 4800 or even 7200dpi at the same pixel count and then you downsize to the print you want. Yeah...

You tell me how you're going to print that billboard at high resolution without a film camera without cheating and upscaling? Righto mate... To do the same job you could do at high resolution with film you end up going down to as low as 30dpi in sign printing.

As to lens resolution maybe, but when you consider the sensor size or film plate at 6x7 or 6x9 then it's not even a comparison. Not to APS-C or anything else this side of an A7 III and then you do the math on it, and add up the cost and its still far cheaper to shoot and develop film.

You can get a complete GL690 and lenses for under $500.

The real-world costs of film are about $3 - $4 a shot shooting slow film... You can buy Portra 800 or whatever at cost if you want it, but your gonna have grain coming out of your ears.

I was a late comer to digital. I held out until 2012 because I didn't think that digital was there yet. However, digital came into its own around 10 years ago. My 20x30 inch prints made from my 20mp Canon 5d2 are on par with the same size prints I had made with my Mamiya 645.

So, then what's the point of shooting film, going through the extra step of digitizing it and printing it with an inkjet printer? It just makes no sense. You'll get much cleaner files shooting digital to begin with. Furthermore, at $4 per shot, not including a high res scan is quite expensive. Those dollars will quickly add up to consume any savings you might have had.

If you want to play with an old camera and if you want to play with film development, that's fine, but I would never recommend a film camera to someone on a tight budget or to someone looking to print moderately large.

I think I said, $4 is a cup of coffee... I was born in the 80s, grew up in the 90s and was an adult by the early 2000s so film is my vibe.

It's quite cheap actually if you're on a tight budget you're not gonna go out and buy a ony A7R III. You might get a 5D MK III at this point or even a II which has had about 10,000+ clicks on it, that the shutter or something else could fail on, which they're known to do at that point, particularly if they've had a hard life.

645 is not really medium format, it was kind of the small format of medium format and generally won't produce more than about 20megapixels worth of usable data before you start just enlarging the grain.

690 on the other hand, you will get 50-60megapixel quite easily, and with technical film you can still push that out to 80-100megapixel before you run out of usable resolution. But you're dealing with slow speed black and white at that point such as CMS20 which is designed special purpose for recording architecture, engineering, and archival pictorial photography.

 Hiphopapotamus's gear list:Hiphopapotamus's gear list
Olympus OM-D E-M5 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 9-18mm F4.0-5.6 Panasonic Lumix G 20mm F1.7 ASPH Olympus M.Zuiko Digital 45mm F1.8 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 12mm 1:2 +5 more
Macro guy
Macro guy Veteran Member • Posts: 4,556
Re: Medium Format vs. Full Frame

Hiphopapotamus wrote:

Macro guy wrote:

Hiphopapotamus wrote:

Macro guy wrote:

thebbqguy wrote:

I like the idea of medium format and I drool over Clyde Butcher's landscapes. The medium format digital cameras are beyond my desired budget, but a used film camera seems like a viable consideration.

To this point I have kept my photography budget purposely conservative and dont see that changing in the near term.

Should I investigate medium format film or hold out for a full frame?

How big are you going to print?

A 50mp digital camera (of any format) can be printed to about the same size, with the same quality as a 6x7 camera. Furthermore, given that practically no one ever prints chemically anymore, your film images are going to be digitized anyway and printed on an inket printer. Therefore, it makes no sense to shoot film if you're looking to get a 20x30 print at 300dpi.

As far as budget is concerned, you can pick up a Sony A7RII, a Canon 5DS r for around $1500.

If you're going to shoot film, you also have to factor in the costs of film and processing. A roll of 120 film, which will produce 10 shots on a 6x7, 12 shots on a 6x6 or 15 shots on a 645 will run you $5. You'll pay another $5-$10 to process, then you'll pay $25 PER FRAME to scan and whatever your printing costs are going to be.

So, when you start factoring in all the hidden costs, the money saved on a film camera doesn't seem as such a bargain anymore.

Umm you start at 4800 or even 7200dpi at the same pixel count and then you downsize to the print you want. Yeah...

You tell me how you're going to print that billboard at high resolution without a film camera without cheating and upscaling? Righto mate... To do the same job you could do at high resolution with film you end up going down to as low as 30dpi in sign printing.

As to lens resolution maybe, but when you consider the sensor size or film plate at 6x7 or 6x9 then it's not even a comparison. Not to APS-C or anything else this side of an A7 III and then you do the math on it, and add up the cost and its still far cheaper to shoot and develop film.

You can get a complete GL690 and lenses for under $500.

The real-world costs of film are about $3 - $4 a shot shooting slow film... You can buy Portra 800 or whatever at cost if you want it, but your gonna have grain coming out of your ears.

I was a late comer to digital. I held out until 2012 because I didn't think that digital was there yet. However, digital came into its own around 10 years ago. My 20x30 inch prints made from my 20mp Canon 5d2 are on par with the same size prints I had made with my Mamiya 645.

So, then what's the point of shooting film, going through the extra step of digitizing it and printing it with an inkjet printer? It just makes no sense. You'll get much cleaner files shooting digital to begin with. Furthermore, at $4 per shot, not including a high res scan is quite expensive. Those dollars will quickly add up to consume any savings you might have had.

If you want to play with an old camera and if you want to play with film development, that's fine, but I would never recommend a film camera to someone on a tight budget or to someone looking to print moderately large.

I think I said, $4 is a cup of coffee... I was born in the 80s, grew up in the 90s and was an adult by the early 2000s so film is my vibe.

It's quite cheap actually if you're on a tight budget you're not gonna go out and buy a ony A7R III. You might get a 5D MK III at this point or even a II which has had about 10,000 clicks on it, that the shutter or something else could fail on, which they're known to do at that point, particularly if they've had a hard life.

645 is not really medium format, it was kind of the small format of medium format and generally won't produce more than about 20megapixels worth of usable data before you start just enlarging the grain.

690 on the other hand, you will get 50-60megapixel quite easily, and with technical film you can still push that out to 80-100megapixel before you run out of usable resolution. But you're dealing with slow speed black and white at that point such as CMS20 which is designed special purpose for recording architecture.

$4 is a cup of coffee, but you're not shooting a single shot. A roll of 10 shots will run you $40 before you even print anything.

10 rolls and there's  $400. So, where are the savings?

You may as well save and get a used sony a7r2 or canon 5ds r and get much cleaner files with less hassle and no consummable costs.

Btw, where are you getting your data vis-a-vis 645?

 Macro guy's gear list:Macro guy's gear list
Canon EOS 5D Mark II Canon EF 50mm F1.8 II +5 more
Hiphopapotamus Senior Member • Posts: 1,175
Re: Medium Format vs. Full Frame

Macro guy wrote:

Hiphopapotamus wrote:

Macro guy wrote:

Hiphopapotamus wrote:

Macro guy wrote:

thebbqguy wrote:

I like the idea of medium format and I drool over Clyde Butcher's landscapes. The medium format digital cameras are beyond my desired budget, but a used film camera seems like a viable consideration.

To this point I have kept my photography budget purposely conservative and dont see that changing in the near term.

Should I investigate medium format film or hold out for a full frame?

How big are you going to print?

A 50mp digital camera (of any format) can be printed to about the same size, with the same quality as a 6x7 camera. Furthermore, given that practically no one ever prints chemically anymore, your film images are going to be digitized anyway and printed on an inket printer. Therefore, it makes no sense to shoot film if you're looking to get a 20x30 print at 300dpi.

As far as budget is concerned, you can pick up a Sony A7RII, a Canon 5DS r for around $1500.

If you're going to shoot film, you also have to factor in the costs of film and processing. A roll of 120 film, which will produce 10 shots on a 6x7, 12 shots on a 6x6 or 15 shots on a 645 will run you $5. You'll pay another $5-$10 to process, then you'll pay $25 PER FRAME to scan and whatever your printing costs are going to be.

So, when you start factoring in all the hidden costs, the money saved on a film camera doesn't seem as such a bargain anymore.

Umm you start at 4800 or even 7200dpi at the same pixel count and then you downsize to the print you want. Yeah...

You tell me how you're going to print that billboard at high resolution without a film camera without cheating and upscaling? Righto mate... To do the same job you could do at high resolution with film you end up going down to as low as 30dpi in sign printing.

As to lens resolution maybe, but when you consider the sensor size or film plate at 6x7 or 6x9 then it's not even a comparison. Not to APS-C or anything else this side of an A7 III and then you do the math on it, and add up the cost and its still far cheaper to shoot and develop film.

You can get a complete GL690 and lenses for under $500.

The real-world costs of film are about $3 - $4 a shot shooting slow film... You can buy Portra 800 or whatever at cost if you want it, but your gonna have grain coming out of your ears.

I was a late comer to digital. I held out until 2012 because I didn't think that digital was there yet. However, digital came into its own around 10 years ago. My 20x30 inch prints made from my 20mp Canon 5d2 are on par with the same size prints I had made with my Mamiya 645.

So, then what's the point of shooting film, going through the extra step of digitizing it and printing it with an inkjet printer? It just makes no sense. You'll get much cleaner files shooting digital to begin with. Furthermore, at $4 per shot, not including a high res scan is quite expensive. Those dollars will quickly add up to consume any savings you might have had.

If you want to play with an old camera and if you want to play with film development, that's fine, but I would never recommend a film camera to someone on a tight budget or to someone looking to print moderately large.

I think I said, $4 is a cup of coffee... I was born in the 80s, grew up in the 90s and was an adult by the early 2000s so film is my vibe.

It's quite cheap actually if you're on a tight budget you're not gonna go out and buy a ony A7R III. You might get a 5D MK III at this point or even a II which has had about 10,000 clicks on it, that the shutter or something else could fail on, which they're known to do at that point, particularly if they've had a hard life.

645 is not really medium format, it was kind of the small format of medium format and generally won't produce more than about 20megapixels worth of usable data before you start just enlarging the grain.

690 on the other hand, you will get 50-60megapixel quite easily, and with technical film you can still push that out to 80-100megapixel before you run out of usable resolution. But you're dealing with slow speed black and white at that point such as CMS20 which is designed special purpose for recording architecture.

$4 is a cup of coffee, but you're not shooting a single shot. A roll of 10 shots will run you $40 before you even print anything.

10 rolls and there's $400. So, where are the savings?

You may as well save and get a used sony a7r2 or canon 5ds r and get much cleaner files with less hassle and no consummable costs.

Btw, where are you getting your data vis-a-vis 645?

I don't shoot 645 regularly (although I shoot a Universal camera and so I can). My figures for 645 are off the top of my head from what I last remember. Re: the rest you either learn how to develop yourself and pay for the consumables or you pay someone else. Let's say you divide about $60-$70 by 8 you're still working out that 6x9 costs you $8 a shot.

There are other things... I can put up with film grain, it's not random noise caused by other electronic factors that makes it displeasing. Even Canon, Sony, Nikon, and Fuji are realising this and adding other factors such as baked in noise reduction to deal with the less pleasing factors of noise. Or otherwise X-Trans. This deals with the undesired random disturbance of useful information that is caused by signal gain amplification rather than the unique texture of film that is not only pleasing but replicable.

I posted up a 30megapixel 12x24 shot. If you open it at print size on your monitor in Photoshop or Lightroom, if you have your monitor scaled correctly you wont see the grain at all at 300dpi. That's from a very early version of Fuji Pro film they no longer make anymore and the grain structure is about equivalent to ISO800 or 1600 but it's not displeasing.

Maybe if you printed the same film at 24x48 (2ftx4ft) and hung it on the side of an average sized wall you will see the grain if you're standing in front of it. But who stands directly in front of a 2ft by 4ft print? With a 48inch print you should be at least standing about 5ft away from it or at a minimum 3ft.

Viewing things at 100% is a very bad habit anyway...

 Hiphopapotamus's gear list:Hiphopapotamus's gear list
Olympus OM-D E-M5 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 9-18mm F4.0-5.6 Panasonic Lumix G 20mm F1.7 ASPH Olympus M.Zuiko Digital 45mm F1.8 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 12mm 1:2 +5 more
JohnS59 Regular Member • Posts: 349
Re: Medium Format vs. Full Frame

Hiphopapotamus wrote:

JohnS59 wrote:

Macro guy wrote:

thebbqguy wrote:

I like the idea of medium format and I drool over Clyde Butcher's landscapes. The medium format digital cameras are beyond my desired budget, but a used film camera seems like a viable consideration.

To this point I have kept my photography budget purposely conservative and dont see that changing in the near term.

Should I investigate medium format film or hold out for a full frame?

How big are you going to print?

A 50mp digital camera (of any format) can be printed to about the same size, with the same quality as a 6x7 camera. Furthermore, given that practically no one ever prints chemically anymore, your film images are going to be digitized anyway and printed on an inket printer. Therefore, it makes no sense to shoot film if you're looking to get a 20x30 print at 300dpi.

As far as budget is concerned, you can pick up a Sony A7RII, a Canon 5DS r for around $1500.

If you're going to shoot film, you also have to factor in the costs of film and processing. A roll of 120 film, which will produce 10 shots on a 6x7, 12 shots on a 6x6 or 15 shots on a 645 will run you $5. You'll pay another $5-$10 to process, then you'll pay $25 PER FRAME to scan and whatever your printing costs are going to be.

So, when you start factoring in all the hidden costs, the money saved on a film camera doesn't seem as such a bargain anymore.

I am the proud owner of a Pentax 67II analogue system (6x7cm) and a high quality MF filmscanner (no drum scanner though). I also have a Fujifilm APS-C sytem (24 MP). Even APS-C is far better in terms of resolution than is possible with this analogue system and a film like Ilford Pan F. Even when I bypass the scanner and print myself with the Leitz Focomat IIc.

The lenses are not that sharp too, measured to current standards.

I still like the analogue system, especially for B&W architecture, but for landscape I don't see any benefits. And I didn't even talk about FF.

So the best way is to go digital, be it APS-C or FF.

John.

I don't have a lot of recent examples because, actually, I've been off exploring other things with my film shots, so it's a bit random at the moment. But I've been entertaining myself with my film shots rather than other people.

You can still get plenty of sharp shots... It's just going to look like film. It depends if you like the tones and colours of film and the way it reacts differently to colour and light than digital does.

Of course, I'm just recording what film stocks are out there and how they react for my own purposes at the moment, I'm not doing big panoramic landscapes, that's not to say you can't.

Film is always going to have that cinematic, or painters brush look to it. You may not like that, but it's organic, it's using emulsion. That's the very nature of film.

Fuji 400N (yes N to S) expired (2008) Scanned on a Noritsu Koki

Cinestill 800T (Tungsten film) scanned on a Fuji Frontier

Velvia 50 scanned on a Fuji Frontier.

Ektar 100 scanned on a Fuji Frontier

I like those Ektar 100 files and film look! I mostly used Provia 100F slide film in the past and now only B&W. I always found the limited dynamic range of slide film difficult to deal with. Never tried negative. Most people used slide film those days, often Velvia for landscape.

I also think that there are a lot of good reasons to go the analogue route, as you said. Just for fun. Also, you still can get descent resolution and totally satisfactory prints, even very large one.

Only to the point of ultimate resolution and very clean files (no grain) digital has passed analogue MF a long time ago IMHO. That's important for landscape (see OP). Unless you're prepared to go with 4x5" and larger, maybe.

John

 JohnS59's gear list:JohnS59's gear list
Fujifilm XF 14mm F2.8 R Fujifilm FinePix X100 Fujifilm X-T1 Fujifilm X-H1 Fujifilm XF 35mm F1.4 R +8 more
Hiphopapotamus Senior Member • Posts: 1,175
Re: Medium Format vs. Full Frame

JohnS59 wrote:

Hiphopapotamus wrote:

JohnS59 wrote:

Macro guy wrote:

thebbqguy wrote:

I like the idea of medium format and I drool over Clyde Butcher's landscapes. The medium format digital cameras are beyond my desired budget, but a used film camera seems like a viable consideration.

To this point I have kept my photography budget purposely conservative and dont see that changing in the near term.

Should I investigate medium format film or hold out for a full frame?

How big are you going to print?

A 50mp digital camera (of any format) can be printed to about the same size, with the same quality as a 6x7 camera. Furthermore, given that practically no one ever prints chemically anymore, your film images are going to be digitized anyway and printed on an inket printer. Therefore, it makes no sense to shoot film if you're looking to get a 20x30 print at 300dpi.

As far as budget is concerned, you can pick up a Sony A7RII, a Canon 5DS r for around $1500.

If you're going to shoot film, you also have to factor in the costs of film and processing. A roll of 120 film, which will produce 10 shots on a 6x7, 12 shots on a 6x6 or 15 shots on a 645 will run you $5. You'll pay another $5-$10 to process, then you'll pay $25 PER FRAME to scan and whatever your printing costs are going to be.

So, when you start factoring in all the hidden costs, the money saved on a film camera doesn't seem as such a bargain anymore.

I am the proud owner of a Pentax 67II analogue system (6x7cm) and a high quality MF filmscanner (no drum scanner though). I also have a Fujifilm APS-C sytem (24 MP). Even APS-C is far better in terms of resolution than is possible with this analogue system and a film like Ilford Pan F. Even when I bypass the scanner and print myself with the Leitz Focomat IIc.

The lenses are not that sharp too, measured to current standards.

I still like the analogue system, especially for B&W architecture, but for landscape I don't see any benefits. And I didn't even talk about FF.

So the best way is to go digital, be it APS-C or FF.

John.

I don't have a lot of recent examples because, actually, I've been off exploring other things with my film shots, so it's a bit random at the moment. But I've been entertaining myself with my film shots rather than other people.

You can still get plenty of sharp shots... It's just going to look like film. It depends if you like the tones and colours of film and the way it reacts differently to colour and light than digital does.

Of course, I'm just recording what film stocks are out there and how they react for my own purposes at the moment, I'm not doing big panoramic landscapes, that's not to say you can't.

Film is always going to have that cinematic, or painters brush look to it. You may not like that, but it's organic, it's using emulsion. That's the very nature of film.

Fuji 400N (yes N to S) expired (2008) Scanned on a Noritsu Koki

Cinestill 800T (Tungsten film) scanned on a Fuji Frontier

Velvia 50 scanned on a Fuji Frontier.

Ektar 100 scanned on a Fuji Frontier

I like those Ektar 100 files and film look! I mostly used Provia 100F slide film in the past and now only B&W. I always found the limited dynamic range of slide film difficult to deal with. Never tried negative. Most people used slide film those days, often Velvia for landscape.

I also think that there are a lot of good reasons to go the analogue route, as you said. Just for fun. Also, you still can get descent resolution and totally satisfactory prints, even very large one.

Only to the point of ultimate resolution and very clean files (no grain) digital has passed analogue MF a long time ago IMHO. That's important for landscape (see OP). Unless you're prepared to go with 4x5" and larger, maybe.

John

Unless you have optimal lighting and a good light meter (spot metering won't help) slides become difficult to work with. Negatives have surpassed slides in a lot of ways. People no longer demand slides so that they can see their hero shots on a light table, but that's always fun to do (6x9 slides really glow). They don't demand them for enlarging purposes either... No one in the media demands it because they don't really use film, or they use it for purpose few and far between.

Negs have surpassed slides because there has been newer developments, Ektar 100 has a better grain structure than Velvia 50, and then there is the dynamic range. Portra is about the same. The latitude for over and under exposure has changed dramatically. You can basically achieve -3 and +3 stops without any undesirable faults. You try the same with slides and it's +1 and -1 and it's actually really closer to half a stop forcing you to really nail your exposure and make compromises with where you want your highlights and shadows to go.

You can get very large and satisfactory prints from medium format. If you are prinitng for general purposes then unless your like me and simply exploring now you would be better off on price and cost of shooting digital small format as you will get cleaner files...

The compromise with medium format is that you do get grain... Like I said... You're talking more so about 50-60megapixel though before it starts becoming an issue where you're seeing more grain than pixels. But you can achieve 80 to 100 if you're pushing the limits.

My question to you is where on God's earth are you going to put that 80inch print? You're beginning to look at something that isn't hung but screen printed and stuck to the side of a wall with a permanent fixture.

 Hiphopapotamus's gear list:Hiphopapotamus's gear list
Olympus OM-D E-M5 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 9-18mm F4.0-5.6 Panasonic Lumix G 20mm F1.7 ASPH Olympus M.Zuiko Digital 45mm F1.8 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 12mm 1:2 +5 more
thebbqguy
OP thebbqguy Regular Member • Posts: 241
Re: Medium Format vs. Full Frame

Hiphopapotamus wrote:

Macro guy wrote:

Hiphopapotamus wrote:

Macro guy wrote:

thebbqguy wrote:

I like the idea of medium format and I drool over Clyde Butcher's landscapes. The medium format digital cameras are beyond my desired budget, but a used film camera seems like a viable consideration.

To this point I have kept my photography budget purposely conservative and dont see that changing in the near term.

Should I investigate medium format film or hold out for a full frame?

How big are you going to print?

A 50mp digital camera (of any format) can be printed to about the same size, with the same quality as a 6x7 camera. Furthermore, given that practically no one ever prints chemically anymore, your film images are going to be digitized anyway and printed on an inket printer. Therefore, it makes no sense to shoot film if you're looking to get a 20x30 print at 300dpi.

As far as budget is concerned, you can pick up a Sony A7RII, a Canon 5DS r for around $1500.

If you're going to shoot film, you also have to factor in the costs of film and processing. A roll of 120 film, which will produce 10 shots on a 6x7, 12 shots on a 6x6 or 15 shots on a 645 will run you $5. You'll pay another $5-$10 to process, then you'll pay $25 PER FRAME to scan and whatever your printing costs are going to be.

So, when you start factoring in all the hidden costs, the money saved on a film camera doesn't seem as such a bargain anymore.

Umm you start at 4800 or even 7200dpi at the same pixel count and then you downsize to the print you want. Yeah...

You tell me how you're going to print that billboard at high resolution without a film camera without cheating and upscaling? Righto mate... To do the same job you could do at high resolution with film you end up going down to as low as 30dpi in sign printing.

As to lens resolution maybe, but when you consider the sensor size or film plate at 6x7 or 6x9 then it's not even a comparison. Not to APS-C or anything else this side of an A7 III and then you do the math on it, and add up the cost and its still far cheaper to shoot and develop film.

You can get a complete GL690 and lenses for under $500.

The real-world costs of film are about $3 - $4 a shot shooting slow film... You can buy Portra 800 or whatever at cost if you want it, but your gonna have grain coming out of your ears.

I was a late comer to digital. I held out until 2012 because I didn't think that digital was there yet. However, digital came into its own around 10 years ago. My 20x30 inch prints made from my 20mp Canon 5d2 are on par with the same size prints I had made with my Mamiya 645.

So, then what's the point of shooting film, going through the extra step of digitizing it and printing it with an inkjet printer? It just makes no sense. You'll get much cleaner files shooting digital to begin with. Furthermore, at $4 per shot, not including a high res scan is quite expensive. Those dollars will quickly add up to consume any savings you might have had.

If you want to play with an old camera and if you want to play with film development, that's fine, but I would never recommend a film camera to someone on a tight budget or to someone looking to print moderately large.

I think I said, $4 is a cup of coffee... I was born in the 80s, grew up in the 90s and was an adult by the early 2000s so film is my vibe.

It's quite cheap actually if you're on a tight budget you're not gonna go out and buy a ony A7R III. You might get a 5D MK III at this point or even a II which has had about 10,000+ clicks on it, that the shutter or something else could fail on, which they're known to do at that point, particularly if they've had a hard life.

645 is not really medium format, it was kind of the small format of medium format and generally won't produce more than about 20megapixels worth of usable data before you start just enlarging the grain.

690 on the other hand, you will get 50-60megapixel quite easily, and with technical film you can still push that out to 80-100megapixel before you run out of usable resolution. But you're dealing with slow speed black and white at that point such as CMS20 which is designed special purpose for recording architecture, engineering, and archival pictorial photography.

I really enjoy architecture photos printed large a lot. I had some time on my hands yesterday and my mind got to thinking about the possibilities.

I have noticed some increasing local interest in film photography recently and in researching that I discovered the $500 solution to my big print desires (or so I thought).

I follow Clyde Butcher on Instagram and even he has used digital quite a bit in recent years. It is definitely convenient.

I'm kind of a modern day relic I guess. I'm 51 and planted firmly between an appreciation for traditional and fascination with the latest and greatest.

I can afford the digital route suggested in this thread, but my logical side prevents me from jumping in with both feet at this time.

I have really been trying to focus on the actual cost per pixel. If printing smaller sizes, the cost with cheap digital cameras is quite low. But its printing bigger sizes that cause costs to rise significantly.

But I know next to nothing about film.

-- hide signature --

I learned a long time ago to stop trying to do what others do, because they're good at it. -- Do what you're good at. (B.B. King)

Hiphopapotamus Senior Member • Posts: 1,175
Re: Medium Format vs. Full Frame

thebbqguy wrote:

Hiphopapotamus wrote:

Macro guy wrote:

Hiphopapotamus wrote:

Macro guy wrote:

thebbqguy wrote:

I like the idea of medium format and I drool over Clyde Butcher's landscapes. The medium format digital cameras are beyond my desired budget, but a used film camera seems like a viable consideration.

To this point I have kept my photography budget purposely conservative and dont see that changing in the near term.

Should I investigate medium format film or hold out for a full frame?

How big are you going to print?

A 50mp digital camera (of any format) can be printed to about the same size, with the same quality as a 6x7 camera. Furthermore, given that practically no one ever prints chemically anymore, your film images are going to be digitized anyway and printed on an inket printer. Therefore, it makes no sense to shoot film if you're looking to get a 20x30 print at 300dpi.

As far as budget is concerned, you can pick up a Sony A7RII, a Canon 5DS r for around $1500.

If you're going to shoot film, you also have to factor in the costs of film and processing. A roll of 120 film, which will produce 10 shots on a 6x7, 12 shots on a 6x6 or 15 shots on a 645 will run you $5. You'll pay another $5-$10 to process, then you'll pay $25 PER FRAME to scan and whatever your printing costs are going to be.

So, when you start factoring in all the hidden costs, the money saved on a film camera doesn't seem as such a bargain anymore.

Umm you start at 4800 or even 7200dpi at the same pixel count and then you downsize to the print you want. Yeah...

You tell me how you're going to print that billboard at high resolution without a film camera without cheating and upscaling? Righto mate... To do the same job you could do at high resolution with film you end up going down to as low as 30dpi in sign printing.

As to lens resolution maybe, but when you consider the sensor size or film plate at 6x7 or 6x9 then it's not even a comparison. Not to APS-C or anything else this side of an A7 III and then you do the math on it, and add up the cost and its still far cheaper to shoot and develop film.

You can get a complete GL690 and lenses for under $500.

The real-world costs of film are about $3 - $4 a shot shooting slow film... You can buy Portra 800 or whatever at cost if you want it, but your gonna have grain coming out of your ears.

I was a late comer to digital. I held out until 2012 because I didn't think that digital was there yet. However, digital came into its own around 10 years ago. My 20x30 inch prints made from my 20mp Canon 5d2 are on par with the same size prints I had made with my Mamiya 645.

So, then what's the point of shooting film, going through the extra step of digitizing it and printing it with an inkjet printer? It just makes no sense. You'll get much cleaner files shooting digital to begin with. Furthermore, at $4 per shot, not including a high res scan is quite expensive. Those dollars will quickly add up to consume any savings you might have had.

If you want to play with an old camera and if you want to play with film development, that's fine, but I would never recommend a film camera to someone on a tight budget or to someone looking to print moderately large.

I think I said, $4 is a cup of coffee... I was born in the 80s, grew up in the 90s and was an adult by the early 2000s so film is my vibe.

It's quite cheap actually if you're on a tight budget you're not gonna go out and buy a ony A7R III. You might get a 5D MK III at this point or even a II which has had about 10,000+ clicks on it, that the shutter or something else could fail on, which they're known to do at that point, particularly if they've had a hard life.

645 is not really medium format, it was kind of the small format of medium format and generally won't produce more than about 20megapixels worth of usable data before you start just enlarging the grain.

690 on the other hand, you will get 50-60megapixel quite easily, and with technical film you can still push that out to 80-100megapixel before you run out of usable resolution. But you're dealing with slow speed black and white at that point such as CMS20 which is designed special purpose for recording architecture, engineering, and archival pictorial photography.

I really enjoy architecture photos printed large a lot. I had some time on my hands yesterday and my mind got to thinking about the possibilities.

I have noticed some increasing local interest in film photography recently and in researching that I discovered the $500 solution to my big print desires (or so I thought).

I follow Clyde Butcher on Instagram and even he has used digital quite a bit in recent years. It is definitely convenient.

I'm kind of a modern day relic I guess. I'm 51 and planted firmly between an appreciation for traditional and fascination with the latest and greatest.

I can afford the digital route suggested in this thread, but my logical side prevents me from jumping in with both feet at this time.

I have really been trying to focus on the actual cost per pixel. If printing smaller sizes, the cost with cheap digital cameras is quite low. But its printing bigger sizes that cause costs to rise significantly.

But I know next to nothing about film.

I got back into film about 5 years ago now. At the time I couldn't afford to upgrade to an A7R II or D850, so I found a $500 solution with medium format on 6x9 with a 50mm lens and a Mamiya Universal that could give me a wide angle camera for that.

In the mean time I found myself more comfortable with what I knew from my childhood than digital and now I shoot almost exclusively on 6x9 and explore the film stock choices I can get my hands on.

Clyde looks like he does some interesting stuff in the vein of Ansel Adams...

I have a fascination for relieving the 1980s and 1990s as that was my childhood and youth.

I could afford to buy an A7 now but I'm not really interested in it.

The cost of printing large with film can be cheap but you have to factor in the issues involved with film today.

A lot of developers now are running whatever they could get their hands on when everyone else sold their gear which means there is a lot of minilab style scanners. Some even have old Konicas (prior to Noritsu) but mostly older Fuji Frontier minilabs.

Here's the conundrum:

You're maxing out at 3600dpi or 4800dpi if you want to go larger than that you have to send it off to specialist labs which are centralised in major cities and film hotspots. You wont know these labs directly and it starts to get really impersonal.

It's like dealing with Dwayne's or whatever... You will never develop a relationship with a high end developer, at best you'll kinda tell them what you want in terms of your settings for your scans and hope for the best.

The big labs are the only ones now who can afford to buy new, high end modern gear. So you kinda sacrifice a bit and get to know your local lab technician who is usually a film enthusiast who has scrounged together enough money to buy a mini lab thats been retired from another lab for their own purposes of self interest because they still shoot film...

Or, you send it off to one of the big, central labs... The days of pro labs that scanned, developed and printed are mostly gone. Most labs now don't even bother to deal with film, you just send them your uncompressed file from your camera and they print digitally.

They usually don't even have the knowledge on how to deal with film anymore so it's all split up. You get your film processed here, send it to the retoucher there and the printer here, and then you get your image... That's if you're doing it professionally.

That's the nature of film today... It's all kinda divisive, and awkward, and chaotic unless of course you're gonna start scanning and printing for yourself. But then even with a V800 you'll be limited to size (6400dpi native) and then if you look at anything more than A3 printers it starts to get expensive also.

 Hiphopapotamus's gear list:Hiphopapotamus's gear list
Olympus OM-D E-M5 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 9-18mm F4.0-5.6 Panasonic Lumix G 20mm F1.7 ASPH Olympus M.Zuiko Digital 45mm F1.8 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 12mm 1:2 +5 more
Greg7579
Greg7579 Veteran Member • Posts: 8,395
It's a Money Decision

Moving to MF takes money. Lots of money. Money that you are willing to spend on camera gear. If you have it you have it and if you don't, there are so many other outstanding options.

You could buy a used GFX 50, but that still requires big money on glass, tripods, and computer power (both desktop and laptop), plus a big 32 inch 4K pro monitor in order to enjoy MF.

If I didn't have the money for the MF world I would be shooting Fuji APSC and be very happy.

Oh sorry (edit) … I reread your post and you are talking about film.

No.

-- hide signature --
 Greg7579's gear list:Greg7579's gear list
Fujifilm XF 16mm F1.4 R WR XF 90mm Fujifilm X100F Leica Q2 Fujifilm X-H1 +16 more
thebbqguy
OP thebbqguy Regular Member • Posts: 241
Re: Medium Format vs. Full Frame

Hiphopapotamus wrote:

thebbqguy wrote:

Hiphopapotamus wrote:

Macro guy wrote:

Hiphopapotamus wrote:

Macro guy wrote:

thebbqguy wrote:

I like the idea of medium format and I drool over Clyde Butcher's landscapes. The medium format digital cameras are beyond my desired budget, but a used film camera seems like a viable consideration.

To this point I have kept my photography budget purposely conservative and dont see that changing in the near term.

Should I investigate medium format film or hold out for a full frame?

How big are you going to print?

A 50mp digital camera (of any format) can be printed to about the same size, with the same quality as a 6x7 camera. Furthermore, given that practically no one ever prints chemically anymore, your film images are going to be digitized anyway and printed on an inket printer. Therefore, it makes no sense to shoot film if you're looking to get a 20x30 print at 300dpi.

As far as budget is concerned, you can pick up a Sony A7RII, a Canon 5DS r for around $1500.

If you're going to shoot film, you also have to factor in the costs of film and processing. A roll of 120 film, which will produce 10 shots on a 6x7, 12 shots on a 6x6 or 15 shots on a 645 will run you $5. You'll pay another $5-$10 to process, then you'll pay $25 PER FRAME to scan and whatever your printing costs are going to be.

So, when you start factoring in all the hidden costs, the money saved on a film camera doesn't seem as such a bargain anymore.

Umm you start at 4800 or even 7200dpi at the same pixel count and then you downsize to the print you want. Yeah...

You tell me how you're going to print that billboard at high resolution without a film camera without cheating and upscaling? Righto mate... To do the same job you could do at high resolution with film you end up going down to as low as 30dpi in sign printing.

As to lens resolution maybe, but when you consider the sensor size or film plate at 6x7 or 6x9 then it's not even a comparison. Not to APS-C or anything else this side of an A7 III and then you do the math on it, and add up the cost and its still far cheaper to shoot and develop film.

You can get a complete GL690 and lenses for under $500.

The real-world costs of film are about $3 - $4 a shot shooting slow film... You can buy Portra 800 or whatever at cost if you want it, but your gonna have grain coming out of your ears.

I was a late comer to digital. I held out until 2012 because I didn't think that digital was there yet. However, digital came into its own around 10 years ago. My 20x30 inch prints made from my 20mp Canon 5d2 are on par with the same size prints I had made with my Mamiya 645.

So, then what's the point of shooting film, going through the extra step of digitizing it and printing it with an inkjet printer? It just makes no sense. You'll get much cleaner files shooting digital to begin with. Furthermore, at $4 per shot, not including a high res scan is quite expensive. Those dollars will quickly add up to consume any savings you might have had.

If you want to play with an old camera and if you want to play with film development, that's fine, but I would never recommend a film camera to someone on a tight budget or to someone looking to print moderately large.

I think I said, $4 is a cup of coffee... I was born in the 80s, grew up in the 90s and was an adult by the early 2000s so film is my vibe.

It's quite cheap actually if you're on a tight budget you're not gonna go out and buy a ony A7R III. You might get a 5D MK III at this point or even a II which has had about 10,000+ clicks on it, that the shutter or something else could fail on, which they're known to do at that point, particularly if they've had a hard life.

645 is not really medium format, it was kind of the small format of medium format and generally won't produce more than about 20megapixels worth of usable data before you start just enlarging the grain.

690 on the other hand, you will get 50-60megapixel quite easily, and with technical film you can still push that out to 80-100megapixel before you run out of usable resolution. But you're dealing with slow speed black and white at that point such as CMS20 which is designed special purpose for recording architecture, engineering, and archival pictorial photography.

I really enjoy architecture photos printed large a lot. I had some time on my hands yesterday and my mind got to thinking about the possibilities.

I have noticed some increasing local interest in film photography recently and in researching that I discovered the $500 solution to my big print desires (or so I thought).

I follow Clyde Butcher on Instagram and even he has used digital quite a bit in recent years. It is definitely convenient.

I'm kind of a modern day relic I guess. I'm 51 and planted firmly between an appreciation for traditional and fascination with the latest and greatest.

I can afford the digital route suggested in this thread, but my logical side prevents me from jumping in with both feet at this time.

I have really been trying to focus on the actual cost per pixel. If printing smaller sizes, the cost with cheap digital cameras is quite low. But its printing bigger sizes that cause costs to rise significantly.

But I know next to nothing about film.

I got back into film about 5 years ago now. At the time I couldn't afford to upgrade to an A7R II or D850, so I found a $500 solution with medium format on 6x9 with a 50mm lens and a Mamiya Universal that could give me a wide angle camera for that.

In the mean time I found myself more comfortable with what I knew from my childhood than digital and now I shoot almost exclusively on 6x9 and explore the film stock choices I can get my hands on.

Clyde looks like he does some interesting stuff in the vein of Ansel Adams...

I have a fascination for relieving the 1980s and 1990s as that was my childhood and youth.

I could afford to buy an A7 now but I'm not really interested in it.

The cost of printing large with film can be cheap but you have to factor in the issues involved with film today.

A lot of developers now are running whatever they could get their hands on when everyone else sold their gear which means there is a lot of minilab style scanners. Some even have old Konicas (prior to Noritsu) but mostly older Fuji Frontier minilabs.

Here's the conundrum:

You're maxing out at 3600dpi or 4800dpi if you want to go larger than that you have to send it off to specialist labs which are centralised in major cities and film hotspots. You wont know these labs directly and it starts to get really impersonal.

It's like dealing with Dwayne's or whatever... You will never develop a relationship with a high end developer, at best you'll kinda tell them what you want in terms of your settings for your scans and hope for the best.

The big labs are the only ones now who can afford to buy new, high end modern gear. So you kinda sacrifice a bit and get to know your local lab technician who is usually a film enthusiast who has scrounged together enough money to buy a mini lab thats been retired from another lab for their own purposes of self interest because they still shoot film...

Or, you send it off to one of the big, central labs... The days of pro labs that scanned, developed and printed are mostly gone. Most labs now don't even bother to deal with film, you just send them your uncompressed file from your camera and they print digitally.

They usually don't even have the knowledge on how to deal with film anymore so it's all split up. You get your film processed here, send it to the retoucher there and the printer here, and then you get your image... That's if you're doing it professionally.

That's the nature of film today... It's all kinda divisive, and awkward, and chaotic unless of course you're gonna start scanning and printing for yourself. But then even with a V800 you'll be limited to size and then if you look at anything more than an A3 printers start to get expensive also.

Living in suburban Detroit I have access to a very well developed art community that is experiencing a resurgence. There is a non profit darkroom membership entity that teaches classes and even owns printers members can use at a discount or you can pay for scanning and they will handle it

They teach film classes and I was thinking of purchasing a GL or GW 690 to go that route. I just don't know all the ins and outside yet for pros and cons between the older and newer models of that design.

-- hide signature --

I learned a long time ago to stop trying to do what others do, because they're good at it. -- Do what you're good at. (B.B. King)

thebbqguy
OP thebbqguy Regular Member • Posts: 241
Re: It's a Money Decision

Greg7579 wrote:

Moving to MF takes money. Lots of money. Money that you are willing to spend on camera gear. If you have it you have it and if you don't, there are so many other outstanding options.

You could buy a used GFX 50, but that still requires big money on glass, tripods, and computer power (both desktop and laptop), plus a big 32 inch 4K pro monitor in order to enjoy MF.

If I didn't have the money for the MF world I would be shooting Fuji APSC and be very happy.

Having it and being willing to spend it are two different things.

-- hide signature --

I learned a long time ago to stop trying to do what others do, because they're good at it. -- Do what you're good at. (B.B. King)

Hiphopapotamus Senior Member • Posts: 1,175
Re: Medium Format vs. Full Frame

The GL690 is interchangeable, you can buy lenses for it, the GW690 is not interchangeable, some say the lenses are better on the GW690. With the prices the way they are you can buy multiple GW690s with the lens widths you want if you get into them.

690 is an older format, it was popular during the early period from the 1920s to 1960s before it dropped off, then during the 60s to 80s 670 became popular, then during the 80s, and early 90s 645 became popular.

So you work around what you have, there are only really three cameras I would consider modern and functional... Folders really aren't viable, so you have the GL690, or GW690 then you have the Mamiya Universal which is a press camera and then you have a big tank of an SLR. The Fuji GX680.

Some can argue by the time you go up to a GX680 you might as well also consider a Crown Graphic, Speed Graphic, or other Crown... And then you also get the chance to use 4x5 cut film backs. But the Crown is a big camera also.

I really wouldn't bother with less than 6x8 roll film these days as small format digital really bests it in most instances. If you have a dark room you can go to that's great. No such thing exists here unless you make your own. If you know a good lab technician who also scans and prints, make friends with them as they are rare and hard to come by.

I've made friends with a lot of important people, some of them are quite old, so I value them as bridges to the knowledge I simply will never gain. One guy in particular who has repaired all sorts of cameras for longer than you've been alive. I value them deeply, not just because there is no one else who can do it, but because they're amazing people and they have skills that far exceed my own.

 Hiphopapotamus's gear list:Hiphopapotamus's gear list
Olympus OM-D E-M5 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 9-18mm F4.0-5.6 Panasonic Lumix G 20mm F1.7 ASPH Olympus M.Zuiko Digital 45mm F1.8 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 12mm 1:2 +5 more
Chris Dodkin
MOD Chris Dodkin Forum Pro • Posts: 12,176
Fujifilm 690s

I shoot with a pair of Fujifilm 690s - also known as Texas Leicas, so can give you some first hand experience.

As you can see, there's a strong family resemblance between the latest GFX50R model and the legacy film models - this is something I appreciate, as Fujifilm have developed the design over decades, and then brought it into the current market with the new digital model.

I shoot the model II versions of the series

The GW690 II...

... and the GSW690II.

Both are fixed lens, fully manual cameras, with no metering, AF, or any electronics what so ever.

They are leaf-shutter, rangefinder cameras, and take 120/220 film.

Fuji originally did an interchangeable lens model, the GL690, with a selection of lenses - but found that people typically bought one of two focal lengths from the series, so moved to fixed lens models for the following range of cameras.

My GSW690II has a fixed 65mm f/5.6 lens, my GW690 II has a fixed 90mm f/3.5 lens.

There are three generations of 690 cameras:

Generation I is the most basic, with no hot-shoe, just a cold-shoe for accessory mounting. The shutter lacks a B setting and instead only has T. The rangefinder spot is round rather than the later rectangular.

Construction is metal, solid, and built-to last.

Generation II was released in 1985. The accessory shoe is upgraded to a hot-shoe, the shutter release now has a lock, and the grip is checked rather than ribbed. The II models weigh a little more than the series I.

Same metal construction, same optics.

Generation III was released in 1992, and has a redesigned molded 'plastic' exterior, with rubberized coating for grip. The camera is still metal, just the moulding overlay is plastic. There is a spirit level embedded in the top for left-right leveling.

They have a new VF/RF mechanism. The older gold-coated beamsplitter system is replaced by a new vernier (Leica-style) hard-edged rectangular spot on an aluminized beamsplitter. Brightness is increased but VF-RF spot contrast is reduced.

The III series sells for more than the II, or I.

All models have a device at the bottom of the camera that counts multiples of ten shots — up to 999, and then, like a car odometer, rolls over at 000

It is a shutter service reminder.

Different people have different numbers for recommended servicing - shutter life was initially stated at 10,000 actuations.

NOTE - it is easy to 'tamper' with the shutter odometer, so they are not generally to be trusted when buying.

I have found the series II to be the best bang for the buck - they are easy to use, and their simple construction and lack of electronics usually bode well for the new owner.

You'll need a light meter, or exposure guide, or experience, to set the desired exposure. Focus via the rangefinder is easy enough to master, and the Fuji optics provide excellent images on 120 or 220 film.

The camera is easy to carry and shoot, so makes a great street, architecture, walk about or landscape model to use. Film loading, advance, recovery is easy and trouble free.

I think these cameras provide a great intro into 120 film shooting, are robust enough to perform decades later without the need for major overhaul, and are most importantly enjoyable to use.

Plenty for sale online - I bought mine from Japan, and they were in mint condition, and have continued to perform flawlessly for a decade or so.

Prices range from $300-$500 for the models. So you can buy a pair for less than the cost of a single GFX lens.

-- hide signature --

Your time is limited, so don't waste it arguing about camera features - go out and capture memories - Oh, and size does matter - shoot MF

 Chris Dodkin's gear list:Chris Dodkin's gear list
Fujifilm X100F Fujifilm X100V Fujifilm X-T2 Fujifilm GFX 50S Fujifilm GFX 50R +43 more
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads