[ColColt]

and Ricoh Advantage Platinum extended 3-year warranty over the camera and 3 lenses) for $15,999.

Well, that's not bad. That's only what my Corolla S cost me new.

[Parallax]

Well, that's not bad. That's only what my Corolla S cost me new.

Yes, but can you take a really, really high quality selfie with your corolla?

[ColColt]

But of course.

[vrolok]

I have just read this thread and find it very interesting.

The comparison between formats, especially on films, has been discussed over and over, though doesnt typically go too deep... "larger is better" and end of story. This is likely very true when it comes to prints and oldish emulsions, but not so evident otherwise.

I went to search for a detailed comparison between film formats I remembered I read some time ago. There was indeed a very nice comparison, just excellent, done by Neal Currie in his blog, using Tech-pan and Tmax - Unfortunately, his blog is now down, hopefully not permanently Few comments left here: 35mm vs. 6x4.5 vs. 6x7 - Photo.net Medium Format Forum

Cheers

[Duplo]

I have just read this thread and find it very interesting.

The comparison between formats, especially on films, has been discussed over and over, though doesnt typically go too deep... "larger is better" and end of story. This is likely very true when it comes to prints and oldish emulsions, but not so evident otherwise.

I went to search for a detailed comparison between film formats I remembered I read some time ago. There was indeed a very nice comparison, just excellent, done by Neal Currie in his blog, using Tech-pan and Tmax - Unfortunately, his blog is now down, hopefully not permanently Few comments left here: 35mm vs. 6x4.5 vs. 6x7 - Photo.net Medium Format Forum

Cheers

Good find and a very interesting read.
The comparison page may be down, but it does not make for a less interesting discussion to follow.

When comparing anything, but especially film formats, it is important to establish a very defined set of parameters by which they are compared. If not it will be an impossible task, as artistic preferences, interpretation and technical parameters collide.

[Danaher Dempsey]

Good find and a very interesting read.
The comparison page may be down, but it does not make for a less interesting discussion to follow.

When comparing anything, but especially film formats, it is important to establish a very defined set of parameters by which they are compared. If not it will be an impossible task, as artistic preferences, interpretation and technical parameters collide.

Reading through the comments and discussion about film size from photo.net circa 2007, I feel even better about purchasing a Bronica rf645 kit.

[Duplo]

Reading through the comments and discussion about film size from photo.net circa 2007, I feel even better about purchasing a Bronica rf645 kit.

I have heard a lot of good about the Bronica, no need not to feel good about it.
I personally tend to shoot both 6x9, 6x7, 6x6 and 135, but for different applications and find 645 too much of an in between, but I can certainly underrstand why that in between makes it is a very attractive format for a lot of people.

[Califmike33]

I have shot 6x7, 4x5 and now digital sony a7r, and i can tell you that in my opinion that black and white is years ahead of digital black and white, no comparision. When you stand back and look at a good color print from digital, 36mp for example and then 6x7 ektar for example. I think the film print just has a certain look, the depth, the tones that digital doesnt have, but i think todays digital is improving alot. Im selling my sony a7r and going back to 6x7 film, yes its alot more hasstle to shoot for sure, but i love the results better than digital for the moment.

[lenticular]

I do very much appreciate all the assistance offered. I can see why the way I asked my questions may have tweaked some sensibilities. That was not my intent.

All I wanted to know was this original question: "...my question is whether you got into MF because the images are better and you were able to see that for yourself before you spent the money on a camera system."

I tried to convince you all that I really was not questioning whether MF was better, I was simply trying to elicit your experiences and decision making before you got into MF. Why? Because I am where you were at some point in your life; it seemed like I could benefit from your experience.

Thanks again for your thoughts.

Dave

I confess that I've so far only read about 3 of the 5 pages comprising this enjoyable thread so far, so I hope my comments aren't redundant.

I really admire the fact that you've had the courage and honesty to ask this question. I blithely followed the consensus that MF would be better than 35mm film, although it took me over 30 years for me to buy a medium format film camera and in the knowledge that I would be scanning to digital as part of my workflow.

An overly long potted history...

I've shot 35mm slides since the mid 1970s when I was in my teens, following my father's lead. 35mm B&W was something I learnt to dabble in at university. Colour print film generally left me disappointed as the run-of-the-mill print shops would invariably just print to an average exposure value.

I pretty much switched over to a DSLR in early 2004, getting interested in alternate legacy lenses around 2009. That opened up a whole new and expensive world and it also taught me that I had missed out on some great film cameras of the day such as the Canon T90. Buying such esoteric cameras initially for a small collection led to me wanting to shoot film again, but doing it cheaply by buying B&W film in bulk.

Eventually I bought a P645N and although it sat there for some months, I finally started shooting with it earlier this year, with 120 slides, B&W and some colour print film too. I already had a decent V700 flatbed scanner and had already learnt the great results to be obtained from a dedicated 35mm film/neg scanner. The results I obtained with this P645N camera, and from a Fuji GA645, left me in no doubt that MF had great gains over 35mm, the only thing coming close being a Leica M6 that I concluded was just too expensive to keep for the limited use I made of it.

I also now have a P67 with mirror lockup, this being still pretty inexpensive to buy relative to the later P6x7, not to mention the P67II. P645 and P67 lenses can be bought very cheaply in many cases, so building up a small system is quite feasible. Some of the lenses I bought were also to go on a P645D, so I am not simply choosing to shoot film, particularly as I do not have a home printing capability.

So, with apologies for a long-winded account, I am left in no doubt that MF film is way ahead of 35mm, especially when you see the like of Fuji Velvia or Provia slides in 645 or even 6x9 (Fuji GW690).

Fuji Velvia 50 slide film on P645N (home-scanned using Epson V700), probably using the P645 A 200f4.



Fuji Velvia 50 (RVP50) on Fuji GW690

[daveward]

I confess that I've so far only read about 3 of the 5 pages comprising this enjoyable thread so far, so I hope my comments aren't redundant.

I really admire the fact that you've had the courage and honesty to ask this question. I blithely followed the consensus that MF would be better than 35mm film,

lenticular...thank you for the comments. I have a specific question for you below...but first, this one is about your years of experience: it sounds like you have had the opportunity to own and use several different cameras. I assume you have purchased and sold and purchased and sold again. From the financial view...do you find that any change in camera values over time means that you:

a. lost money on the purchase vs sale, but any lost $ chalked up to the joy of the camera use while you had it?
b. gained money on the purchase vs sale, whoopee(!!!), and any gain made the joy of use even more grand?

The other area I am interested in understanding is this: from your description, you seem to be saying you take 120 MF color slides, have them processed by a third party and then scan them yourself. Is this correct? Do you find the processing of your slides easy to obtain in your locale?

Thanks again

Dave

[lenticular]

Dave,

Yes, I have bought and sold too many cameras and lenses, especially the former (holding onto many lenses).

Indeed, money depleted on the user experience should be viewed somewhat philosophically, especially when it's part of a personal shift in shooting styles or subjects. Paradoxically, I have tended to move away from (D)SLRs to much more portable rangefinder or mirror less cams, so embracing MF is a backflip in this regard and one I would not stick with if I didn't feel that MF was giving me satisfaction from its inherent qualities. Much cheaper older manual focus P645 and P67 lenses are a big influence here.

I try not to buy in haste, certainly where digicams are concerned! Film cameras generally don't involve much monetary loss.
B) I rarely make a profit!

As you surmise, I am scanning 120 films developed commercially, except for B&W that I do myself. I hope to risk my own colour film development now also as I bought a cheap 2nd hand Jobo processor that greatly facilitates accurate temp control. I can readily get colour neg and slide film developed however postage costs are horrible even for domestic services owing to the film cassette being slightly larger than 'envelope thickness'. I can get them done in my home city, however they wait for a suitable batch size before processng themselves so it's inherently slower. I buy the film where I can find the best deals including postage charges. B&H or Thai eBay dealers are my best bets!

Cheers, David

[algrove]

You started a thread back on the 30th of April and never made another post in it. Were you trolling?

You are correct, but that thread was not active like this one. In any event for 645Z users I was advised by LensAlign it would be best to use the manual method until such time as LensAlign has a 645Z to make profiles for their needs. Never have heard back from them since then.

[unkipunki]

You are correct, but that thread was not active like this one. In any event for 645Z users I was advised by LensAlign it would be best to use the manual method until such time as LensAlign has a 645Z to make profiles for their needs. Never have heard back from them since then.

That's interesting, I got the K3 added by sending him a ooc jpeg and that sorted it. No need for the actual camera at his end. No idea why the Z should be different.

[algrove]

That's interesting, I got the K3 added by sending him a ooc jpeg and that sorted it. No need for the actual camera at his end. No idea why the Z should be different.

I sent him DNG files and the AFA data is zero for the 645Z. He did not know why and also stated that the files he already had from the 645D were the same, with zeros.Then he suggested the following:

"BTW....Your camera is so high res, that you can also do the AFA tests by eye, without Focustune."

That's what I did.

[alan_smithee_photos]

Gentlemen,

I am wondering when and how you each proved it for yourselves. It appears to me that on average, the proof only appears after one buys the equipment and "sees" for oneself there are valid differences. There seems to be very little evidence suggesting that anyone actually snapped a picture of the same thing with two different formats and said: Aha!

I see more and more examples of this. There's even a term I hear a lot these days: hybrid shooting, where the photographer shots both film and digital, frequently post-processing the digital to match the film emulsion (people in the Mastin Labs groups are really big on this, and the Mastin presets seem to be the standard for emulating films like Fuji Pro and Portra).

This is also the way I typically shoot, swapping between my K-5 IIs, my K1000, and medium format (either my Rolleiflex 3.5 or my Fuji GA645i). I like them all but, to my eye, the film consistently conveys a greater sense of drama.

Granted the digital ones below are a little soft (my fault) but I think you get the idea of what I'm talking about.
K-5 IIs:

K1000 (Lomo 800):

Rolleiflex 3.5 (Lomo 400):


K-5 IIs:

K1000 (Lomo 800):

Rolleiflex 3.5 (Lomo 400):