Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
03-04-2014, 07:30 PM   #31
Pentaxian
PPPPPP42's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Wisconsin
Photos: Albums
Posts: 845
QuoteOriginally posted by SpartanD63 Quote
I think I'm set on the MF (still not sure of either 67 or 645 format though)
645, there is more out there and Pentax has indicated it intends to stick with the 645 format. Plus other than the body and lenses, most of the supporting equipment in the printing, scanning and darkroom department usually can do both 35mm and 645 with different film holders (if you get the correct stuff like the enlarger I suggested for example). You would also have the very nice option of someday buying a used 645D body after the 645D II comes out for use with the same lenses if you get sick of film or can't continue with it for some other reason.

I have always felt it takes enough of an expert eye and technical competence to really make the most of 6x7 (actually I think that somewhat about 645 too) that for most people its too much of a good thing.
Its too bad your 35mm body is broken, a good experiment would be to see if when you really try you can make the majority of shots on a 24 exposure roll of 35mm film a keeper. If you find you have mostly snapshots or technically botched stuff then MF would be a disaster.

Curious to see whats in that "photo enlarger" box. If it were my luck it would turn out to be a Kodak slide projector labeled by an idiot.


Last edited by PPPPPP42; 03-04-2014 at 07:38 PM.
03-04-2014, 07:50 PM   #32
Site Supporter




Join Date: Aug 2012
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 345
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by PPPPPP42 Quote
645, there is more out there and Pentax has indicated it intends to stick with the 645 format. Plus other than the body and lenses, most of the supporting equipment in the printing, scanning and darkroom department usually can do both 35mm and 645 with different film holders (if you get the correct stuff like the enlarger I suggested for example). You would also have the very nice option of someday buying a used 645D body after the 645D II comes out for use with the same lenses if you get sick of film or can't continue with it for some other reason.

I have always felt it takes enough of an expert eye and technical competence to really make the most of 6x7 (actually I think that somewhat about 645 too) that for most people its too much of a good thing.
Its too bad your 35mm body is broken, a good experiment would be to see if when you really try you can make the majority of shots on a 24 exposure roll of 35mm film a keeper. If you find you have mostly snapshots or technically botched stuff then MF would be a disaster.

Curious to see whats in that "photo enlarger" box. If it were my luck it would turn out to be a Kodak slide projector labeled by an idiot.
The 645D was also kinda a reason I was considering MF film. Having the lenses would give me an excuse to perhaps get a 645D later.

I have limited experience with film, but I have tried shooting full manual, without metering and without chimping, on my K-30 before with rather good results. I found that quite a few of those types of shots were keepers or were very close to being keepers.

My film turnout is still unknown, as I have yet to get the 3 cheap 36 exposure rolls I shot developed. Those were taken just before... allowing the K1000 to slip from my hands... [The idiot OP dropped it] But it was also about a year ago when I was too poor to even consider a DSLR, so I decided to start with the K1000 while saving up. So they might be bad just because of a lack of experience back then.

And I have yet to get the time to sit down and go through the box. But I have been assured that it is, indeed, an enlarger.
03-05-2014, 10:44 AM   #33
Site Supporter
stevebrot's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Vancouver (USA)
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 26,202
QuoteOriginally posted by Nuff Quote
V700 is cheap and I can't think of single decent 35mm scanner which isn't double or triple the price.
Here in the U.S. there are several quality 35mm scanners that will do a better job at the V700 price point and lower, but no medium format or larger scanners that can touch it.


Steve
03-05-2014, 02:46 PM   #34
Senior Member
johnha's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Lancashire, UK
Posts: 250
QuoteOriginally posted by PPPPPP42 Quote
Research the capabilities of the 645 and 67 bodies, the lack of speeds and features (I don't just mean auto features) that many of the 35mm bodies have is a little surprising. For example all the Pentax bodies at least top out at 1000 shutter speed which wouldn't work for me because I use exclusively Ilford Delta 400 film with DDX developer so that I can get 400 speed with the super fine grain of much slower film but the speed to shoot in many more poorly lit situations with a reasonable shutter speed. The extra stop on the shutter speed (2000) makes up for that one stop when I want to use a wider aperture in brighter situations (a single flower in a sunny field for example).
The Pentax bodies use focal plane shutters unlike almost all other medium format SLR cameras (I can only think of the Mamiya 645 which also has one), and I don't know any medium format film camera that shoots faster than 1/1000th. Most of the leaf shutters top out at 1/500th. The big difference with Pentax (focal plane) shutters is a slow X-sync speed (1/30th on the 67) limiting fill-flash unless you use one of the leaf shutter lenses.

EDIT: With medium format you don't really need to worry about super fine grain anyway.


Last edited by johnha; 03-05-2014 at 03:09 PM.
03-05-2014, 03:28 PM   #35
Veteran Member




Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Sydney
Posts: 671
QuoteOriginally posted by stevebrot Quote
Here in the U.S. there are several quality 35mm scanners that will do a better job at the V700 price point and lower, but no medium format or larger scanners that can touch it.





Steve

Can they come close to V700 and 67 film? That's 30MP equivalent files right there. Also the V700 will look better with this files than even more expensive 35mm scanners like coolscans etc. you are hitting the limit of what 35mm film can do.

I get 26MP equivalent files from my hassleblad and I'm very happy with them. I didn't need larger files yet, but if I do, I can get drumscans.
03-05-2014, 03:46 PM   #36
Veteran Member
fretlessdavis's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Benson, AZ
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 496
My suggestion would be for an ETRS. One of the few 645 systems with interchangeable backs. You can be up and running for under $200, too. That's quite a bit of film and processing money vs. other setups.

Depending on what your target output size is, 2400 dpi from a piece of 645 film will make a great 11x14. The V700 will get there with no problems. If you're doing smaller stuff, look for a second-hand V500 or similar.

If you really want to go big, a drum scanned piece of Provia from a 645, printed on Kodak Supra Endura Metllic, is one beautiful thing. (even bigger formats are even more beautiful! Wish I could justify getting a pack of Provia for my 4x5... but working with old, slightly erratic shutters, and such narrow latitude, I'm sticking with C-41 in there! )

B&W is fantastic in a darkroom. Slides work great on most scanners. If you're doing color negative, I've found it takes 2 passes for about every scanner out there to get all the detail out of a frame. You can combine them in post for dodging and burning and such.

As far as your keeper ratio, I wouldn't worry about it. Each roll of 120 is cheaper than 135-36, and processing costs should be the same. HP5 is only $4 in 120, and about $6 in 35mm, so it's not much more per shot. With bigger negatives you can get a cleaner look at sharpness and composition before enlarging/scanning. Saves time scanning, and saves paper in the darkroom.
03-05-2014, 06:11 PM   #37
Site Supporter
stevebrot's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Vancouver (USA)
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 26,202
QuoteOriginally posted by Nuff Quote
Can they come close to V700 and 67 film?
No, but that was not the point of the comment I was addressing. I own both the V700 and a Coolscan 5000 ED and purchased the v700 specifically for 120 roll film and 4x5 sheet film. Its performance is OK for 35 mm, but not as good as currently available dedicated 35mm film scanners costing less money and definitely not in the same ballpark as the Coolscan. I have comparison scans from the same 35mm negative if you care to dispute. Real-world best resolution for the V700 is about 2400 dpi at best and 2400 dpi is quite adequate for a 645 or 6x7 negative.

As for 30MP or 26MP equivalent files, I don't know where you are getting those numbers. I don't doubt that your Hassy or 6x7 film systems are capable of matching or bettering the resolution of a 30MP or 26MP digital system*, I just question the basis on which you would post those numbers. What the beep is "xxMP equivalent", anyway?


Steve

* Best if evaluated by optical examination of the negative using a microscope

Last edited by stevebrot; 03-05-2014 at 06:42 PM.
03-05-2014, 06:42 PM   #38
Veteran Member




Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Sydney
Posts: 671
QuoteOriginally posted by stevebrot Quote
No, but that was not the point of the comment I was addressing. I own both the V700 and a Coolscan 5000 ED and purchased the v700 specifically for 120 roll film and 4x5 sheet film. Its performance is OK for 35 mm, but not as good as currently available dedicated 35mm film scanners costing less money and definitely not in the same ballpark as the Coolscan. I have comparison scans from the same 35mm negative if you care to dispute. Real-world best resolution for the V700 is about 2400 dpi at best and 2400 dpi is quite adequate for a 645 or 6x7 negative.

As for 30MP or 26MP equivalent files, I don't know where you are getting those numbers. I don't doubt that your Hassy or 6x7 film systems are capable of matching or bettering the resolution of a 30MP or 24MP digital system*, I just question the basis on which you would post those numbers. What the beep is "xxMP equivalent", anyway?


Steve

* Best if evaluated by optical examination of the negative using a microscope

Just math based on 2400dpi and the resolution I get. Vertical x horizontal.

I find the v700 and 35mm adequate for my use. It's enough for a4 print or internet. The hardest part was getting the height of the holder right for best resolution. In my case it's the heights position. Also keeping the film flat.

03-05-2014, 07:13 PM   #39
Site Supporter
stevebrot's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Vancouver (USA)
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 26,202
QuoteOriginally posted by Nuff Quote
Just math based on 2400dpi and the resolution I get. Vertical x horizontal.
The calculation works great assuming perfect film. Indeed, you get file sizes that are equivalent to a 26 or 30 megapixel camera, but actual resolution on direct comparison of scan to a straight digital image is probably somewhat less. How much less, I have no idea, though doing that kind of comparison is on my list of things I want to do should I ever get a K-3 and am able to compare its output to the 5000 ED.


Steve
03-05-2014, 07:32 PM   #40
Veteran Member




Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Sydney
Posts: 671
QuoteOriginally posted by stevebrot Quote
The calculation works great assuming perfect film. Indeed, you get file sizes that are equivalent to a 26 or 30 megapixel camera, but actual resolution on direct comparison of scan to a straight digital image is probably somewhat less. How much less, I have no idea, though doing that kind of comparison is on my list of things I want to do should I ever get a K-3 and am able to compare its output to the 5000 ED.


Steve
I don't usually pixel peep, I'm more after better photos, light, composition etc. Pixel are a bonus
Put it this way, any iso100 film can outresolve V700, so I'm not worried about it. If I ever sell large print and I need something bigger, I know I can get a better scan. But as of right now, I don't see that happening any time soon.

Still I love nice and grainy film too. Like I said, I'm not worried about the pixel peeping, just improving my photos.
03-06-2014, 08:58 AM   #41
Veteran Member
fretlessdavis's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Benson, AZ
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 496
FP4 in 35mm in D76 gave me a 2400x3600 image that had no grain and was visibly sharp to the pixel level. I could improve the scans by overscanning and downsampling, but the practical limit for 35mm for me is 2400x3600-- giving a very clean '8.5 megapixel equivalent' file. The equivalent scanning technique yields a 4200x5600 sized image from a 645 negative, giving a nice, clean '23.5 MP equivalent' file. However, for DOF, I stop down more on my MF, and ETRS lenses, while sharp, aren't the sharpest MF lenses out there-- not on par with Hasselblad, nor the newer Mamiya stuff. I scan at a bit lower resolution-- 2000 DPI, or about 3500 x 4700 pixels--, or about 16.5 'megapixel equivalent' files, to save on speed, and get good looking 11x14's if I print digitally.

Film, to my eye, and frequently others, find the enlargement of the film grain when large prints are looked at up close, to be more pleasing than pixelated, or artificially enlarged and soft digital images. Given this, you could, depending on your personal tastes, push film even further. There are plenty of people that work with Tri-X in 35mm, and will enlarge (and sell!) to 16x20, even though Tri-X in 35mm is bested, resolution wise, by the *ist DSLRS.

Personally, with 35mm, 12x is my personal enlargement limit to get great looking prints, MF is 8-10x enlargement, and LF 4-6x enlargement. This gives me fantastic detail to the naked eye, and only a little 'gritty' in 35mm and slightly so in 645.

You can't really compare megapixels to film resolution, as they both handle things very differently, but above is my best guess.
03-06-2014, 10:26 AM   #42
Site Supporter




Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Michigan
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,073
Comparing the formats being discussed, after conversion to jpgs in the 2000x3000 size range

35mm film: Ricoh KR-5 : Fuji Xtra 400 iso
lens Rikenon XR 1:1.4 50mm
Shop processed and scanned in Australia to 2941 x 1960 1.6MB jpg
https://app.box.com/s/kt1c0gkclvdggkmziqh6

Pentax K-01 raw file converted to 3200 x 2121 4.0 MB jpg,
lens 18~55 at 55mm and f/5.6 and auto focussed on the boat at mid distance
https://app.box.com/s/oxag3uddabbcm3fpvl16

6x7: Fuji pro 400H home developed, scanned on Epson V600, crop 3284 x x2189 5.7 MB jpg,
lens Takumar 6x7 90mm ls at f/16
https://app.box.com/s/qvgti2pqt49awrv0fump

Perhaps the fidelity is a bit down to the nut behind the viewfinder.

When I view all of these on the 22 inch (1920 pix) Eizo, they are all OK at full screen.
When I zoom up toward 100% ( 100% would be a 33 inch wide image, the resolution on all starts to go south, the one that falls first is the 35mm slr.
The K-01 and the 6x7 have roughly similar resolution falloff.

I am getting prints for the 6x7 made by Office Depot, so far up to 14 inch wide. They are rather good.
03-06-2014, 04:12 PM   #43
Site Supporter




Join Date: Aug 2012
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 345
Original Poster
Alright. Doing a bit of reading, I think I'll go for medium format, specifically a 645N.

My thoughts:
Since the 645 format is more compact and portable, it'll get shot more.
Speaking of shooting more, it'll be a little more economical than 6x7.
And the 645N (from what I've read) has more accurate metering than the original 645 (1/3 stop vs full stop?)
I also prefer the more 35mm SLR style handling of the Pentax option compared to the other MF options like the ETRS. (That was actually the first thing that struck me with the 645D, it was so comfortable despite the size)
Then I have a clear digital route if I want to do that (and I'd have an excuse to, as I'd have the lenses)

Any further thoughts on my choice of model? Any film suggestions? (My only previous film experience was just the cheapest 35mm stuff Target had xD) And stuff for developing at home (at least B&W)?

Last edited by SpartanD63; 03-06-2014 at 04:28 PM.
03-06-2014, 04:27 PM   #44
Veteran Member
fretlessdavis's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Benson, AZ
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 496
For film, especially B&W, pick a slow film, fast film, and developer. Any film in any developer can give fantastic results. It's good to understand exposure vs development vs contrast, learning how they work together, before switching films. Delta and Tmax in 100/400 are always great combos, but they're a little trickier to work with. I personally like the tonality of classic films, and how they respond to filters, so I stick with FP4+ and HP5+. Recently had a fling with Acros, but I've moved back to FP4+ for slower stuff.

EDIT: Pick one developer, too. Getting started with a good all-purpose developer is nice. D76/ID-11, XTOL, HC-110 are all excellent choices and will work well with a wide variety of films. The Pyro stuff gets excellent reviews and stunning results, but you have to warm your process up, can't use an acid stop, and have to use an alkaline fix. Not quite as straightforward as something like good ole' D-76

For color, if you scan yourself, C-41 is great-- Portra gives massive latitude and slightly muted colors, which can be bumped up in post. Personally, for color, I just shoot Provia, am careful about color balance, and remove myself from the scanning.

Also, I don't know about your comment about the ETRS being less 35mm like... Look at the speed grips for them. Pair a speed grip with an AEII prism, and it handles just like a 35mm SLR. They can change film mid-roll, which if you're an occasional shooter is an excellent option, and don't discount it just yet.

The 645N is a fine camera, and metering will be more accurate than an ETRS which will come in to play with slides. I give a slight edge to the Pentax glass vs the Zenza stuff, too. The Zenza stuff definitely doesn't render reds and oranges like Pentax does, that's for sure. I use my warming filter a lot more on my ETRS than my Pentax stuff.
03-06-2014, 04:51 PM   #45
Site Supporter




Join Date: Aug 2012
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 345
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by fretlessdavis Quote
1. It's good to understand exposure vs development vs contrast, learning how they work together, before switching films.
2. Also, I don't know about your comment about the ETRS being less 35mm like... Look at the speed grips for them. Pair a speed grip with an AEII prism, and it handles just like a 35mm SLR. They can change film mid-roll, which if you're an occasional shooter is an excellent option, and don't discount it just yet.
3. The 645N is a fine camera, and metering will be more accurate than an ETRS which will come in to play with slides.
4. I give a slight edge to the Pentax glass vs the Zenza stuff, too. The Zenza stuff definitely doesn't render reds and oranges like Pentax does, that's for sure. I use my warming filter a lot more on my ETRS than my Pentax stuff.
1. If I've read correctly, the process for getting exposure right for film is kinda the opposite of digital? "Expose for the shadows and develop for the highlights" or something like that, instead of exposing for the highlights and bringing up the shadows as you would with digital?
2. I didn't notice that accessory. And I did kinda like the idea of being able to change mid roll, but even 16 shots doesn't seem like enough to really need the option.
3. Yeah, I'm not sure how much I'd play with slides, but having the option to more reliably nail the exposure should help when I do.
4. THAT is a major reason I want to go with the Pentax. I have NEVER had a bad Pentax lens (aside for the DA*s with the AF motor... )
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!
35mm, bodies, color, date, developer, era, exposures, fiber, film, flower, ilford, issue, k-30, lens, medium format, mf, mirror, mx, paper, photos, repair 35mm slr, repair advice, roll, service, shots, shutter, situations, sports, suggestions
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Pentax Medium Format Resources: 645 & 6x7 Cameras and Lenses, 645 & 6x7 Accessories Adam Pentax Medium Format 9 02-12-2017 03:38 AM
Pentax 645 and 6X7 or 67 lenses to PK Adk X Troubleshooting and Beginner Help 8 04-25-2012 03:24 PM
Pentax 645 120mm macro and Pentax 645 35mm lenses and Pentax 6x7 45mm lens. Newmoon Pentax Medium Format 11 03-14-2012 02:10 PM
Where'd you start - 35mm SLR or dSLR? johnmflores Pentax DSLR Discussion 89 08-20-2010 12:44 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:30 AM. | See also: NikonForums.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