Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
03-14-2018, 05:56 AM   #31
Moderator
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Baltimore
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,383
QuoteOriginally posted by Scintilla Quote
I've got one photo store within 10 minutes of my house that will develop, scan, and print, and another smaller one that will gladly send your film to be developed and scanned by some other store. Of course, I live in North Jersey, and the first photo store in question is Unique Photo... but there's also plenty of mail-order labs like The FIND Lab and The Darkroom.
This is an important point, or 2, that you make. If you are near a major urban area, then there will still be film resources available. If you are within a short/quick shipping range then the post can wok well. If, OTOH, you are not in one of these 2 situations, then you've got to be more inclined to at least process your own film. And if that's color, then it's trickier.

03-14-2018, 08:06 AM   #32
Moderator
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Baltimore
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,383
QuoteOriginally posted by rdenney Quote
As to cost, I don’t remember the source of the claim and I certainly paid a lot for the quickloads in my freezer. But part of it was the efficiency afforded by sheet film—never any wasted shots to get a roll out of the camera.

Rick “larger formats are less demanding of lenses, which makes the biggest difference in kit cost” Denney
Mine is not a real analysis by any stretch, but I just recall that quick loads were more expensive, and loading regular sheet film was labor intensive, and bracketing burned up sheets, not frames, and 120/220 roll film was pretty cheap back in the day. For an experienced, Ansel-type photographer who managed to have a high hit rate, maybe sheet film was economical. For duffers like me, lots of fails and frustration. So, burning through a lot of film and time. And those fails and frustrations were never so enjoyable as those in fly-fishing (or any fishing, really...), by comparison.

And then there were the polaroids.....
03-14-2018, 09:21 AM - 2 Likes   #33
Pentaxian
LaHo's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Greater Copenhagen Area
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 428
For what it's worth, I have gone the film medium format route with Pentax 645N and NII plus 67II. Resolutionwise digital MF now leaves 645 film in the dust, it's true, but I have great fun with my film gear and love the whole film process with home development and all. When the day comes that I can afford a digital MF camera (and that will of course be a Pentax camera) I have a full range of lenses from the 35mm wide angle to 200mm tele in 645 mount and 500mm in 6x7 mount. But I am not in a hurry. Medium format film is simply so much fun and not that expensive when you develop the film yourself. And the gear is fairly cheap. Even C-41 and E-6 are no big deal to develop at home either, though I mostly stick to regular B/W film because I also run a B/W darkroom.

Digital files have a habit of being stored on a hard drive and be forgotten, whereas film negatives and prints thereof have a physical existence and don't require the intervention of computers to be viewed and admired.
03-14-2018, 09:34 AM - 2 Likes   #34
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jan 2012
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,258
QuoteOriginally posted by LaHo Quote
Resolutionwise digital MF now leaves 645 film in the dust
That is debatable. Each format has its advantages and disadvantages. Analog and digital will never be directly comparable in any medium IMHO.

03-15-2018, 12:45 AM   #35
Pentaxian
LaHo's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Greater Copenhagen Area
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 428
QuoteOriginally posted by Mr Bassie Quote
That is debatable. Each format has its advantages and disadvantages. Analog and digital will never be directly comparable in any medium IMHO.
You are quite correct that they are not directly comparable, which is also why I like film so much. Film has character from the outset, whereas digital needs a lot of post-processing to be given similar character. Another thing I like about film is the wide choice of systems and formats. When I want resolution and big, beautiful negatives, I shoot 6x7 (Pentax 67 II). When I want convenience, I shoot Pentax 645 N or N II for motorized film transport, auto-focus lenses and lighter weight than 6x7. And when I want to test the square format and the joy of a TLR with a waistlevel viewfinder and bellows with good close focus ability, I shoot my Mamiya C330 or C220. This sort of variety is not there in the digital world yet.
03-15-2018, 04:37 AM   #36
Senior Member




Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: La Vienne (86), France
Posts: 223
QuoteOriginally posted by Simen1 Quote
Sensor costs are slowly and steadily decreasing. Sometime in the future I hope I can get a 44x33mm sensor in a K mount camera for just slightly more then a 36x24mm variety. Most K mount lenses can deliver more then Ø43mm image circle in most of the settings. Only occationally I would need to crop all the way down to 36x24mm or less to get decent corner performance.
Bear in mind that you need a 55mm image cirlce to cover a 44x33 sensor....probably beyond the acceptable limits for a typical K-mount lens.
03-15-2018, 07:39 AM - 1 Like   #37
Site Supporter
Site Supporter




Join Date: Feb 2018
Location: NoVA
Posts: 635
QuoteOriginally posted by LaHo Quote
You are quite correct that they are not directly comparable, which is also why I like film so much. Film has character from the outset, whereas digital needs a lot of post-processing to be given similar character.

One might say, with equal validity, that digital has character from the outset, and that (color, at least) film lacks the dynamic range to emulate it. Had digital been the dominant medium for a century with film as the upstart, the waxing nostalgic would go the other way.

If one’s artistic objectives require a narrow range of subject brightness spread over a wide range of image viewing, then digital has to be heavily manipulated to achieve it. But it is possible.

If those artistic objectives require a wide subject brightness range that needs compression to fit into an available viewing range, one will struggle with film, being forced to apply a range of image reality distortions, including (to name but one example) the use of grad filters.

I can get about six stops of range out of transparency film (five—maybe four—if it is Velvia). The contrast and abundance of deep blacks in any sharply lit scene gives it its characteristic look. But I also have to choose between highlight detail and shadow detail. Color negative film is better—maybe 10 stops—but still can’t cover a high-contrast scene. The latest sensors can do that, with a 14-stop range, even at higher ISO’s. Black and white film can do that with special processing (using compensating developers like pyro), but not color film.

But I absolutely agree that larger formats are vastly cheaper using film, if one is making relatively few images over time. Film has a low “capital” cost but a high marginal cost. It’s easy to start, but each new image is as expensive as the last. Digital has a high capital cost but a low marginal cost for each new image. A production pro will appreciate that.

Each medium has its strengths and weaknesses, as has been said, and I use both.

Rick “who limits film to low-production applications” Denney

03-15-2018, 04:37 PM   #38
Veteran Member
Silent Street's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Castlemaine, Victoria, AUS
Photos: Albums
Posts: 1,149
"I can get about six stops of range out of transparency film (five—maybe four—if it is Velvia). The contrast and abundance of deep blacks in any sharply lit scene gives it its characteristic look. "

Huh? "contrast and abundance of deep blacks in any sharply list scene" is not a characteristic of RVP when it is used as intended. For example it is not a good film here in outback Australia where morning and evening reds are so intense that RVP overcooks them completely. That's RDPIII time. This is consistent with the application of many landscape photographers.

RVP also prints poorly in conditions outlined above, with particularly reference to Ilfochrome Classic and its quite inflexible contrast. The film itself is designed as a diffuse illumination emulsion, and in that regard it can be modulated to give punch or a REALA look. Too many people expose it in bright sun and wonder why it snuffs shadows and blitzes spectrals. This problem is one I deal with in teaching more often than anything else and is a baseline example of not understanding how slide film like RVP and RDP behaves compared to negative films.

Carefully exposed and explicitly metered, 5 stops is certainly achievable with Velvia, but I can squeeze out 7 with subtractive metering. I do not shoot in bright sun at all, and where that is required, I switch to RDPIII @EI125.

Last edited by Silent Street; 03-15-2018 at 06:31 PM.
03-15-2018, 06:36 PM   #39
Site Supporter
Site Supporter




Join Date: Feb 2018
Location: NoVA
Posts: 635
Medium format and the masses

What’s the “huh?” part? Everything you wrote confirmed what I wrote, close enough.

Rick “who has shot Velvia 50 120 and 4x5 even in bright sun” Denney
03-16-2018, 01:56 PM   #40
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Tromsø, Norway
Photos: Albums
Posts: 1,031
QuoteOriginally posted by Bob L Quote
Bear in mind that you need a 55mm image cirlce to cover a 44x33 sensor....probably beyond the acceptable limits for a typical K-mount lens.
I know. Just 1,27x the diagonal of 36x24 sensors. If you project light through a lens and onto a piece of paper you will get a feeling of how large the image circle really are. On most lenses its just 1 or 2 settings where the circle narrows in at close to 43,3mm diameter. Some lenses have the double of that at certain settings. I think 55mm will be practically available in many real situations.
03-17-2018, 07:20 AM   #41
Senior Member




Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: La Vienne (86), France
Posts: 223
QuoteOriginally posted by Simen1 Quote
I know. Just 1,27x the diagonal of 36x24 sensors. If you project light through a lens and onto a piece of paper you will get a feeling of how large the image circle really are. On most lenses its just 1 or 2 settings where the circle narrows in at close to 43,3mm diameter. Some lenses have the double of that at certain settings. I think 55mm will be practically available in many real situations.
I'd be interested to see what transpires. The arrival of light outside the intended image circle is one thing but it would surprise me if the manufacturers put much effort into correcting the aberrations in the region that isn't normally captured.....soft corners are a common criticism when lenses are used on their intended sensor.

Bob
03-18-2018, 10:17 AM - 1 Like   #42
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
gofour3's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 8,085
I don't see MF digital ever being for the masses, as the current camera and lens costs are way beyond what the masses want to pay. These digital MF cameras do not hold their value and most people do not want to get into the "new camera every couple years" cycle either. (Dropping over 10K for a new 645D and a few years later would be lucky to get 2.5k for it.) Also new MF lenses designed for the digital bodies are also ridiculously priced for most people.

Buying cheaper used MF film cameras & lenses is much more appealing for the average folk and also very easy to sell if desired.

Phil.
03-18-2018, 11:17 AM   #43
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
Alex645's Avatar

Join Date: May 2015
Location: Kaneohe, HI
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,526
Iʻm old enough to remember the Kodak Brownie which was a medium format for the masses from roughly 1900-1960. So in theory, someone could make a barebones (auto ISO/aperture/shutter speed) plastic fixed lens, fixed focus MF digital; itʻs going to be a very expensive TOY camera.....even with a Chinese fire sale on cloned medium format sensors.

Think Holga/Diana/Lomo digital and call it the KloneDak BrownEye.
03-18-2018, 11:26 AM   #44
Moderator
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Baltimore
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,383
QuoteOriginally posted by Alex645 Quote
Iʻm old enough to remember the Kodak Brownie which was a medium format for the masses from roughly 1900-1960. So in theory, someone could make a barebones (auto ISO/aperture/shutter speed) plastic fixed lens, fixed focus MF digital; itʻs going to be a very expensive TOY camera.....even with a Chinese fire sale on cloned medium format sensors.

Think Holga/Diana/Lomo digital and call it the KloneDak BrownEye.
Groooooaaaan....but I think you're right about it. a few years yet, Kickstarter.
03-18-2018, 01:53 PM - 1 Like   #45
Site Supporter
Site Supporter




Join Date: Feb 2018
Location: NoVA
Posts: 635
Pro stuff has always been expensive.

Lots of working pros used Hasselblads, but they weren’t as expensive relative to the competition as they later became. (Leica was the same way in 35mm.) In the 60’s, Nikon redefined the photojournalist’s camera, replacing the Speed Graphic (still widely used in the US in the 50’s, the Leica, and the Rolleiflex (which wasn’t versatile enough). The Speed Graphic faded away, and the Rolleiflex transitioned to a camera for rich amateurs, increasing in price by an order of magnitude between 1950 and 1975.

To solve the flexibility problem of the Rolleiflex, Hasselblad popularized the box SLR, with interchangeable lenses and film holders. Mamiya stayed with the TLR design, but came out with the Mamiyaflex (which ultimately morphed into the C330 ProS), and provided interchangeable lenses.

Norita used the Nikon F (which had used Exakta as a model) as the model for a horizontal-transport SLR when creating the Norita 66. Pentacon did the same based on the Exakta with the PraktiSix. But that style of camera became a real professional tool and alternative to the box SLR with the Pentax 6x7. The 6x7 made that format available to rollfilm pros, and the Mamiya RB-67 (among others) took it back to the box SLR.

But the 6x7-format cameras were beasts. To improve portability, Mamiya, Bronica, and Pentax came out with the 645 format.

By that time, impecunious hobbyists were using old cameras or the Yashica Mat 124–the best of the Japanese alternatives to the Rolleiflex. Those buying the 67 and 645 cameras needed money—they were quite expensive compared to 35mm cameras used by general hobbyists. Except for some fixed-lens TLRs, medium format was pricey.

The fact that old medium format stuff is so cheap is simply supply and demand. There is little demand for film cameras and a vast supply of used stuff from when there was lots of demand. It certainly did not used to be cheap.

Pentax’s current lenses targeted for the 645z are not that expensive. Canon gets around $2k for professional zoom lenses in common focal lengths. Their specialty pro lenses are more, and sometimes much more. The Pentax lenses are more, but they are a fraction of the price of Hasselblad and Leica lenses. Even Mamiya-branded lenses are more than Pentax lenses. The 28mm Mamiya lens for the Mamiya/Leaf is much more, for example, than the Pentax 28-45 zoom. The Schneider lenses for that mount are much more expensive, sitting in the same range as ‘blad and Leica S lenses.

The Pentax is pro-level stuff, even the old manual-focus lenses, and by that measure it’s quite competitive. It’s not reasonable to compare it to a Canon Rebel.

But, as I said, medium format SLRs were always pro-level stuff and they were always expensive, unless you consider the Second-World stuff. The Pentax 6x7 body and lens, in 2011 dollars, was about $10k—less than the current 645z. That’s why I did my commercial work in those days with a Mamiya C-3–I couldn’t afford Pentax stuff.

All digital camera prices collapse. My 5D that was $3000 when I bought is now worth maybe $500. That’s why I wait for the new models to be discounted in advance of something newer coming out. That’s why I spent $2500 for my 5D—with 24-105 L lens—instead of that retail price.

Rick “‘too expensive for me’ and ‘too expensive’ aren’t the same thing” Denney
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
645d, 645z, body, camera, car, film, format, iso, kit, lens, lenses, medium, medium format, pentax, photo, post, resolution, roll film, scanner, scans, store, system, travel, tripods, zone
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Post your non-pentax medium-format and large-format pictures DenisG Canon, Nikon, Sony, and Other Camera Brands 26 12-07-2020 08:02 PM
New Hassie Medium Format announced where next for Pentax 645Z and successor itshimitis Pentax Medium Format 49 06-28-2016 12:27 AM
645D for the Masses Kenn100D Pentax Medium Format 71 02-26-2011 08:15 PM
Cheap lighting for the masses! codiac2600 Post Your Photos! 17 02-23-2008 05:50 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:38 AM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top