[timw4mail]

So if we consider the fixed focus Kodak Duaflex TLR as an advanced toy with 127 film as not quite MF (4x4 cm) and the Seagull as a great idea with horrible build quality (I bought two and both fell apart before the warranty expired), that essentially means Yashica and Mamiya.

If weʻre talking price, then Holga/Diana were king. If itʻs best used price depreciation, then itʻs Hasselblad. But as MF systems go, Pentax has been the go-to for price, availability, durability/reliability, and legacy. All those photogs I once knew shooting Bronica, Mamiya, Rollei, and even Fujifilm MF rangefinders...are significantly more rare than Pentax.

Not every medium format camera has to be a system camera.

Argus, Ricoh, Minolta, and many other had simple, affordable TLRs that are still fairly inexpensive. Argus's spartan, simple, and inexpensive Argoflex models (not counting the 75) are leagues better than the typical Kodak Brownie, but work as an inexpensive exploration into medium format.

I have a Bronica SQ-Am camera, because I was able to get it for significantly less than a Pentax 67 or 45. The Pentax SLRs no doubt have better lens selection, and other accessories.

I guess my point is that there is quite a wide spectrum of price and capability in medium format, especially for a 6x6 image.

[tuco]

A person can spend a lot of money on MFD camera. And since you have a MFD, most likely you'll have to post sharp pictures from it to justify the expense. That means a tripod most the time since the MFD cameras I'm aware of don't have built in image stabilization. A slight handhold motion blur and you can null the advantage of a MFD camera over some small format camera that has IS built in and can crank out tack-sharp pictures without a tripod. But no doubt that will change in the future.

[rdenney]

A person can spend a lot of money on MFD camera. And since you have a MFD, most likely you'll have to post sharp pictures from it to justify the expense. That means a tripod most the time since the MFD cameras I'm aware of don't have built in image stabilization. A slight handhold motion blur and you can null the advantage of a MFD camera over some small format camera that has IS built in and can crank out tack-sharp pictures without a tripod. But no doubt that will change in the future.

I don’t think one has to justify the expense based solely on sharpness.

I think I can justify the cost on the combination of image quality, forgiveness of lenses, and enlargement magnification. Not that any amateur requires more justification than “I want it and I have the money.” The 645z is expensive, but it’s cheaper than, say, a Rolex Submariner, which lots of people own without feeling any particular need to justify it.

Medium format film requires the same exacting technique to work at the medium’s limits, and small-format digital needs those extra features just to hope to keep up in a comparison.

We are not wasting that resolution by exceeding the capability of the lens, as might be the case for many lenses available for the 645z. We are merely getting all those lenses have to offer. But we are doing that at iso 3200, instead of iso 100 as with film.

Real situation: I want to make a photo of a deer in my yard at just before dusk. I need a 400m lens.



I don’t have my wife’s camera (in the background)—a Nikon D500 with a 200-500 Nikkor with its vast store of vibration reduction.

With iso 100 film, my exposure will be 1/25 at f/5.6. I’d need two tripods to make that a sure thing with a lens that long.

But at iso 3200, my exposure is now 1/800 at f/5.6. I might even be able to hand-hold that, or use a monopod, even without stabilization.

There are black-and-white films that fast. But in color, my 645z image at 3200 will look at least as good in terms of noise as 400 film—the fastest color film that is any good at all.

And I’ll be able to make a 16x20 print of that with only a 12x enlargement—my wife’s D500 at that enlargement will only go to 8x10. At the 24x required for her to make a 16x20, she’ll need that VR and a lower iso, too.

At 12x, my print has 387 pixels/inch in the print. Even though we can see a difference with more than that, the difference is extremely subtle. Hers will be about 240, which is okay, but the difference will be less subtle. Her lens aberrations will be twice as magnified, too. Her results will be good; mine will be better, even though her lens is arguably better.

The film shot from that 645NII will only look good as a contact print because of motion blur

In practical terms, medium-format digital provides some image headroom that makes things possible compared to small cameras, and some sensitivity headroom that makes things possible compared to medium-format film.

Rick “not that hard to justify” Denney

[jtkratzer]

Processing B+W film isn't difficult at home, unless you're doing zone system (and with that, you'd only be doing the film half. You have to shift gears to do post to mimic zone system). Then it's scanning (which is its own thing). It's time consuming, but not horrendous. Color is more complicated. MF is about the same as 35, just different tanks. So, any B+W film processing guide will do for basics. Then there's the niceties, but there always are. I recommend trying it first at some local school, coop, artists' space, etc.

Funny thing is I called a local school to take their B&W silver photography class and guess what the prerequisite was - the digital photography class. I hung up on them when they wouldn’t waive it for someone who isn’t seeking a degree or certification and that I have 20 years of photography experience.

[texandrews]

I don’t think one has to justify the expense based solely on sharpness.

I think I can justify the cost on the combination of image quality, forgiveness of lenses, and enlargement magnification. Not that any amateur requires more justification than “I want it and I have the money.” The 645z is expensive, but it’s cheaper than, say, a Rolex Submariner, which lots of people own without feeling any particular need to justify it.

Medium format film requires the same exacting technique to work at the medium’s limits, and small-format digital needs those extra features just to hope to keep up in a comparison.

We are not wasting that resolution by exceeding the capability of the lens, as might be the case for many lenses available for the 645z. We are merely getting all those lenses have to offer. But we are doing that at iso 3200, instead of iso 100 as with film.

Real situation: I want to make a photo of a deer in my yard at just before dusk. I need a 400m lens.



I don’t have my wife’s camera (in the background)—a Nikon D500 with a 200-500 Nikkor with its vast store of vibration reduction.

With iso 100 film, my exposure will be 1/25 at f/5.6. I’d need two tripods to make that a sure thing with a lens that long.

But at iso 3200, my exposure is now 1/800 at f/5.6. I might even be able to hand-hold that, or use a monopod, even without stabilization.

There are black-and-white films that fast. But in color, my 645z image at 3200 will look at least as good in terms of noise as 400 film—the fastest color film that is any good at all.

And I’ll be able to make a 16x20 print of that with only a 12x enlargement—my wife’s D500 at that enlargement will only go to 8x10. At the 24x required for her to make a 16x20, she’ll need that VR and a lower iso, too.

At 12x, my print has 387 pixels/inch in the print. Even though we can see a difference with more than that, the difference is extremely subtle. Hers will be about 240, which is okay, but the difference will be less subtle. Her lens aberrations will be twice as magnified, too. Her results will be good; mine will be better, even though her lens is arguably better.

The film shot from that 645NII will only look good as a contact print because of motion blur

In practical terms, medium-format digital provides some image headroom that makes things possible compared to small cameras, and some sensitivity headroom that makes things possible compared to medium-format film.

Rick “not that hard to justify” Denney

Hey, Rick---

I meant to comment very, very positively on all that you wrote, sorry I'm 6 days late. I saw it back then, but didn't have time to comment. Totally agree on every single point. And I think it's a shot at the whingers who incessantly complain about "no new lenses". I can't afford them anyway....although I did manage to just pick up a used 25.

[rdenney]

Hey, Rick---

I meant to comment very, very positively on all that you wrote, sorry I'm 6 days late. I saw it back then, but didn't have time to comment. Totally agree on every single point. And I think it's a shot at the whingers who incessantly complain about "no new lenses". I can't afford them anyway....although I did manage to just pick up a used 25.

For me, it’s a philosophy of digital that the sensor should exceed the capability of the lens. These are the same lenses we used to make excellent large prints back in film days, and they’ll make those same prints now.

The secret to contentment is to avoid 100% displays.

But I do envy you that 25.

Rick “who has to absorb the expenses of the current spending spree” Denney

[Alex645]

Funny thing is I called a local school to take their B&W silver photography class and guess what the prerequisite was - the digital photography class. I hung up on them when they wouldn’t waive it for someone who isn’t seeking a degree or certification and that I have 20 years of photography experience.

Some schools (or instructors) are dogmatically rigid and others can be persuaded. I teach both B&W film and Color digital but neither is a prereq for the other.....if anything B&W film should be the prereq, but I can see the argument the other way too.

If you didnʻt burn a bridge on the call, Iʻd try to reach the instructor directly to explain why youʻd like an exception and that for you, taking the digital photo class is not an option and why. Often the instructor wants to either pad their intro course, or they donʻt want to regret making an exception with someone that may think they know more than is expected. A quick chat should help dispel your level of knowledge.

[jtkratzer]

Some schools (or instructors) are dogmatically rigid and others can be persuaded. I teach both B&W film and Color digital but neither is a prereq for the other.....if anything B&W film should be the prereq, but I can see the argument the other way too.

If you didnʻt burn a bridge on the call, Iʻd try to reach the instructor directly to explain why youʻd like an exception and that for you, taking the digital photo class is not an option and why. Often the instructor wants to either pad their intro course, or they donʻt want to regret making an exception with someone that may think they know more than is expected. A quick chat should help dispel your level of knowledge.

Instructor wouldn’t take my call. It was all passed through a receptionist-type person who had no authority and certainly didn’t seem interested in lobbying on my behalf. I didn’t burn a bridge, but it was evident they were not interested in catering to someone who wasn’t interested in a multi-year program for self-enjoyment and, shocked, education. Perhaps because most students first time with a film camera would be that class, it’s easier to teach the effects of the triangle of shutter speed, aperture and ISO/film speed with a digital, or at least a quicker feedback loop, I get it, but I shouldn’t have to take the digital course when I want to learn darkroom skills. The digital course also included instructor on Photoshop and Lightroom.

[Alex645]

Instructor wouldn’t take my call. It was all passed through a receptionist-type person who had no authority and certainly didn’t seem interested in lobbying on my behalf. I didn’t burn a bridge, but it was evident they were not interested in catering to someone who wasn’t interested in a multi-year program for self-enjoyment and, shocked, education.

I am offering a B&W Film photo course this summer for adults in Hawaii for 5 weeks. Come to Oahu!

Probably similar to your situation, my school also has secretaries or "administrative assistants" who are the "first responders" and wield (or abuse) the power of their gate-keeping role. Iʻve lost many potential students because the gate-keeper keeps their jobs simpler by drawing a line in the sand.

If you really want to take the course, you could probably say you wanted to ask the instructor a question about the digital course, and if you got his or her email or phone, or even better could meet with them, start the conversation with the digital course and how it is redundant for you, and then inquire if they would make an exception for you to take the film course instead. Your first challenge is to get around the receptionist.

If there are better or easier options for you, then Iʻd drop it. But if there isnʻt, I wouldnʻt give up as easily and persist.

[rdenney]

Hey, Rick---

I meant to comment very, very positively on all that you wrote, sorry I'm 6 days late. I saw it back then, but didn't have time to comment. Totally agree on every single point. And I think it's a shot at the whingers who incessantly complain about "no new lenses". I can't afford them anyway....although I did manage to just pick up a used 25.

(Thank you, by the way. Very nice of you to say.)

Of course, the amazing part is that this topic is about digital medium-format for the masses. Right now, you can buy a 645D for about $2200. Here's what I've bought recently: 55 DFA ($450), 35 FA ($700), 120 A Macro ($139), 200 FA ($138), 400 FA ($600), 300 A* ($379), 80-160 A ($76), 1.4x converter ($65), plus maybe $100 in various lens shades and caps. I already had the 45-85 FA, but these are "trending" on ebay for $331. I also already had the 75LS, but these are available on ebay for about $300. So, a fairly vast lens collection including a lot of autofocus lenses can be had for about $3300. That breadth isn't even available (I purposely avoided adapted lenses) with other medium-format options.

Doing the same with Canon, with any hope of achieving remotely comparable results and breadth of capabilities (using a 5Ds): 24-105/4L zoom (trending at $490), 70-200/4L without IS ($500), 300/4L ($500), 1.4 converter (trending at $191), 85/1.8 ($275), and a 100/2.8 Macro ($330). That's a coupla thousand, on top of a $3000 body, which is pretty close to a 645D with all those lenses. Forget doing it with a 5DII-IV--at 22MP, but even with a 5DII, the body will be at least $700 for one that works and isn't past its shutter count. So, the 645D option would be about twice the cost doing it on the cheap. (Sorry for the Canon content--I'm just not familiar enough with Pentax small-format digital cameras to offer the more appropriate comparison.)

So, the amateur photographer that once stepped up to a Yashica Mat 124G to get bigger negatives and bigger prints has no solution, but then that solution was pretty limited. Matching that with digital medium format needs a 645D and a 55mm A: $2200. Yes, that's more than consumer-grade digicams, but then that Mat 124G was more expensive than a Canonet 28, too, and about at the same quality with respect to its format.

Pentax was always the cheapest of what used to be the Big Three in 35mm SLRs: Canon, Nikon, and Pentax. It was therefore popular with non-pros simply because it had the quality without as high a price. In the 70's, the Pentax 6x7 was expensive, but unique, being the only 6x7 camera that wasn't configured like a vintage press camera of one sort or another (as was Mamiya--either the Universal or the RB). But it was still cheaper than a Hasselblad by a good margin. Of course, nether Nikon nor Canon ever supported anything larger than 35mm, where the big alternative players were Mamiya, Hasselblad, and Rollei. Even when looking at twin-lens reflex cameras, the big players were Mamiya, Rollei, and the cheapie decent-quality alternative, Yashica (with cheaper knockoffs than that)--but Pentax never made a TLR though Ricoh did. Then, 645 happened, and suddenly there were great pro-grade 645 cameras on the market: Again from Mamiya, but now Bronica and Pentax, too. Those were at least as expensive as pro-grade Canons and Nikons, but cheaper than Hasselblads and Rolleis. Among all these, Pentax was always the value leader.

And it still is the value leader. A new 645z body is $5500 at present, and all those lenses can still be had for $3300. One might pick and choose a cheaper alternative here and there. So, one can have a camera and a large array of lenses for the price of the Hasselblad or Fuji with its normal lens, for which there are no pre-owned options. Pentax's most expensive lenses are pricey, but let's consider actual prices of new equipment (which is unfair to Pentax, of course, because they purposely maintained compatibility with their standing lens lines, while H and F purposely did not--that's one price one pays for being a bona-fide optical SLR).

Keeping the comparison to new lenses, a kit with body, 35ish wide, wide-short-tele zoom, 55 normal, 75 long normal, 120 macro, and moderate (300) telephoto is: Pentax: $17,150. Fujifilm (body plus 32-63 zoom kit--the only moderate wide-angle option, plus other lenses): $15,800, but they are missing the 300mm lens (and Pentax's 300 sells new for $4500). If it is priced higher than their shorter lenses but still not as much as the 300 ED(IF), the total will be $19,400. And one gets a camera without an optical viewfinder and requiring adapters that cost more than most used Pentax 645 lenses to make available even more expensive lenses (such as for the Hasselblad H), if any degree of automation is to be maintained. Hasselblad doesn't cover all the bases with the X1 lens lineup, but the total of what they do cover is $20,900 with no mid-length zoom and nothing longer than 120. Assuming they bring out those two lenses at prices commensurate with their other lenses, we are talking over $30,000. The H6 (the current H) is that much just for the body, but it does have a 100-MP, larger sensor. The Mamiya 645 with the Leaf 50mp back is $24,000, body only. And then there's the Leica S2.

(Fujifilm did exploit very specific holes in Pentax's lens line, however: A relatively affordable ultra-wide and a very fast short tele.)

But I doubt many buy all the new lenses. A pro might buy the latest version of the lens in his specialty area, but the others he'll buy second-hand like the rest of us. Unlike amateurs, pros have to be cost-efficient if they want to make money (which, it would seem, not all do). The charm of the Pentax is that it supports and is fully compatible with its prior film fleet. That option isn't available without adaptation (which the Pentax can do, too) in the price-competitive mirrorless cameras. Those lenses were good enough then to take advantage of the format, and they still are.

Rick "who must be bored today" Denney

---------- Post added 04-02-18 at 09:55 AM ----------

Instructor wouldn’t take my call. It was all passed through a receptionist-type person who had no authority and certainly didn’t seem interested in lobbying on my behalf. I didn’t burn a bridge, but it was evident they were not interested in catering to someone who wasn’t interested in a multi-year program for self-enjoyment and, shocked, education. Perhaps because most students first time with a film camera would be that class, it’s easier to teach the effects of the triangle of shutter speed, aperture and ISO/film speed with a digital, or at least a quicker feedback loop, I get it, but I shouldn’t have to take the digital course when I want to learn darkroom skills. The digital course also included instructor on Photoshop and Lightroom.

It sounds to me like you don't really need or want education, but rather you want training in specific darkroom skills.

(The difference between education and training, which is a matter of vocational interest for me as a professional trainer in an engineering field, goes like this: Your child comes home from school and announces that he or she will be taking a sex education class. You may chuckle at the modern world, or be mildly concerned. But you would react differently if said child announced being enrolled in a sex training class.)

There are many, many private workshops held by master printers and darkroom techs, from whom you will receive far better training than you would in a college photography education program. Even if you found someone whose work you admire, and paid them to work with you in their darkroom (the musicians receive "lessons"), you'll be better off.

Rick "one on one training is often cheaper than one-to-many education, and better for those who really just want the training" Denney

[Alex645]

There are many, many private workshops held by master printers and darkroom techs, from whom you will receive far better training than you would in a college photography education program. Even if you found someone whose work you admire, and paid them to work with you in their darkroom (the musicians receive "lessons"), you'll be better off.

I agree, but unless you're lucky, those "many, many private workshops" require travel and considerable expense. And many artists and photographers and designers that are exceptional at their craft are poor teachers.

I was fortunate to start my teaching career at ArtCenter College of Design, where most of the instructors are working artists and designers that were adjunct professors or visiting lecturers. At the private high school where I teach, a majority of the art teachers, like myself, were artists first, and then got into teaching.

Yes there can be a big difference between "education" and "training", just as there is a difference between creating fine art vs. craft. But in most visual art education, unlike engineering, I think it's unfair to compare it to sex ed vs. training or driver's ed vs. training. In my classes, my students learn more by doing than me lecturing and explaining.

[rdenney]

I agree, but unless you're lucky, those "many, many private workshops" require travel and considerable expense. And many artists and photographers and designers that are exceptional at their craft are poor teachers.

I was fortunate to start my teaching career at ArtCenter College of Design, where most of the instructors are working artists and designers that were adjunct professors or visiting lecturers. At the private high school where I teach, a majority of the art teachers, like myself, were artists first, and then got into teaching.

Yes there can be a big difference between "education" and "training", just as there is a difference between creating fine art vs. craft. But in most visual art education, unlike engineering, I think it's unfair to compare it to sex ed vs. training or driver's ed vs. training. In my classes, my students learn more by doing than me lecturing and explaining.

Sure. But what will a black-and-white class in college teach? Zone system? The chemical properties of silver halides? The history of black-and-white photography, or the study of its masters? All that stuff you can learn in books, even the Zone System. And by ruining stuff in your own darkroom.

If it's how not to foul your chemicals by dripping fixer into your developer, or how to process prints for archival durability, or how to test film and paper to understand their response curve, then it's training you need. Photography used to be a blue-collar profession, and that's how they treated it. Those who made art of it are the same as sculptors who make their art by welding stuff together. They still need to know how to weld, and they can learn that from an industrial welder. Technique is a matter of training. Vision (as Adams said, a pompous word) is a matter of education, though some come to it more readily than others. Mostly, it's knowing what already has been done so that one has a vocabulary of success to mix with their own responses. People have asked me how to learn to write, and my response has always been, read.

If I were to take a workshop, I would want two things out of it, assuming I already know the fundamentals: 1.) advanced technical tricks I don't already know, and 2.) how to look at a print and know what it needs to be better. It's like music lessons, of which I've had many--I'm expected to learn and play scales at home, and I learned how to move air in my youth. But now my lessons are about interpretation: phrasing, musicality, and tone. Half of the lesson is listening to the teacher, and for that, the teacher doesn't really need to know how to teach.

If you're an artist and teach art, you know all this stuff. So, what are your objectives? What is your desired outcome?

Rick "who asks this question at the start of every class, and often gets 'I jus' wanna know more 'bout ________' as an answer" Denney

[Alex645]

Sure. But what will a black-and-white class in college teach?

There will be a fairly large range of what the focus of the curriculum will be. Much of that will be based on prerequisites or lack of.

[/I]If I were to take a workshop, I would want two things out of it, assuming I already know the fundamentals: 1.) advanced technical tricks I don't already know, and 2.) how to look at a print and know what it needs to be better.

If you're an artist and teach art, you know all this stuff. So, what are your objectives? What is your desired outcome?
Rick Denney

No single class or group lesson will be customized to your specific needs; a tutor or individual lessons would be ideal. However, classes are excellent for open critiques as you will hear a diversity of thought on how to looks at a print and ways for improvement.

As a teacher, I encounter classes of 10-22 students and regardless of age, there is a diversity of needs and ability. In a perfect world I could offer them all what they want and need while teaching to both the advanced, average, and most challenged students. And then there is the motivated learner that is almost self-taught and the day dreamers that needs to be inspired and/or forced....and everyone in-between.

Training is about "how to". Education is about "why". My objective is to teach both. The desired outcome is learning.

[photoptimist]

Sure. But what will a black-and-white class in college teach?

When I took photography in high school, the biggest advantage of the class was access to a medium format film camera (a simple but serviceable Yashica-D TLR), darkroom, chemicals, tanks, enlargers, and even a modicum of free film & paper. If you don't have a darkroom and are wondering if you might want one, then a class can be a great intro to wetwork.

[rdenney]

Sorry, Alex645—I got confused—you are the guy teaching the class in Hawaii. I turned you into the guy who was refused a class at his local college. My advice was to him, assuming traveling to Hawaii isn’t an option.

My apologies.

Rick “hates when that happens” Denney