|
Forum: Film SLRs and Compact Film Cameras
03-14-2014, 08:51 AM
|
| |
My ETRS has the option for both standard and wide 35mm format.
I love having the option, but haven't used it so far, as 120 isn't much more expensive. I'm much more interested in the wide format 35mm back, which gives 24mmx56mm images onto 35mm film =)
|
|
Forum: Film SLRs and Compact Film Cameras
03-13-2014, 12:27 PM
|
| |
Dang, that's a good deal! Their E-6 is cheap, too.
Do they take mail orders?
EDIT: Just saw their develop and scan @2000x3000 is only $7.50 a roll. That's a bargain.
|
|
Forum: Film SLRs and Compact Film Cameras
03-13-2014, 09:16 AM
|
| |
Wow! $3-$4 a sheet I'm guessing? Last time I checked with the local lab, they wanted $7 per sheet of 4x5 C-41...
I have yet to shoot any 4x5 C-41, as Provia 100f is about the same price in 4x5, and AgX imaging has great prices for E-6, and they ONLY do E-6 dip and dunk.
It's been a while, but I double checked-- $2.50 a sheet there. Any place that does C-41 anywhere near that price? They're $12.50 price point for a 4000 dpi scan on a Hasselblad Flextight is pretty attractive, too. I think they'll even do 8000 dpi on single frames of 120 for that price. From my experience that X5 is pretty damn good at pulling everything it can out of E-6. Not sure about C-41, though.
|
|
Forum: Film SLRs and Compact Film Cameras
03-12-2014, 11:38 AM
|
| |
With the better coverage I get and larger finder, it's easier to compose more carefully, too. For B&W, if you're able to do it yourself, HP5+ is $4.09 a roll, TMAX 400 is $24.50 for a 5 pack, and FP4+ is about $4.70 a roll. Not that bad. Just by going out to eat twice a month instead of once a week, I can fund an extra roll shot and developed every week =)
C-41 isn't bad to do yourself either for processing. Though, if you are planning on scanning yourself, I've found using the proper color correcting filters and getting exposure dead-on in camera makes batch scanning a ton easier. If you don't do it yourself, I think Dwayne's charges $4 for developing only... The chemicals for color (for my usage) come out to about $1.50 a roll.
|
|
Forum: Film SLRs and Compact Film Cameras
03-12-2014, 09:35 AM
|
| |
Just for comparisons sake:
135-36: $10.59, $9 processing at Dwayne's, $0.54 per shot film and processing
120: $6.99, $7.50 processing at Dwayne's, $0.90 per shot film and processing
Not that big of a difference. It seems most people have more keepers on MF than 35mm, too. Also, in terms of square inches of negative area, 120 is cheaper in total.
If you like Velvia, they're almot the same, since the last time I saw Velvia in 35mm, it was about $16 a roll for 35mm, and $8 a roll for 120.
B&W and C-41 are less of a difference... Dwayne's charges the same for 120 and 135-36 for C-41, and it takes the same volume of chemicals to process 120 and 135-36, so the difference is fairly small.
|
|
Forum: Film SLRs and Compact Film Cameras
03-07-2014, 07:46 AM
|
| |
The 75mm 645 lens will be approximately the same as the 105 on the 6x7. Hard to say if it really stacks up in all aspects, though.
The waistlevel is nice. I backpack with my kit, so I can strip off the grip and swap on the waistlevel to get something that's not any more bulky than a DSLR.
Also, for any kind of people shots, even ones that are not candid-- when you lift a monster of a camera up to your eye, it can change their whole demeanor. A wasitlevel doesn't make it obvious what you're doing for candids, and can make for some interesting perspective, too. I can handhold at slower speeds with a waistlevel better, too, as I can brace it against my chest.
|
|
Forum: Film SLRs and Compact Film Cameras
03-06-2014, 05:09 PM
|
| |
1. B&W is about PROPER exposure and PROPER development. Basically, you don't want your shadows lower than 2 stops below the middle tones, otherwise they'll just be black. If there's a ton of contrast in the scene, you can always pull development to reduce contrast, and pair it with a comparable increase in exposure. Not a big deal if you use variable contrast paper, and don't shoot somewhere with really harsh light and deep shadows.
2. It's finger powered, as opposed to using batteries, which is nice. 16 shots is a decent amount, actually. When I had one back, I lost quite a few shots in good light. With MF, you have to stop down more to get the same DOF, since lenses are longer. Pair that with the bigger mirror and shutter, and you lose more speeds that you can shoot handheld. For me at least, evening and morning twilight are a pain. I was at f/11 to get necessary DOF, and could get 1/30 on the shutter... That resulted in quite a bit of shake, and blurry shots. Being able to pop over to 400 speed would've gotten me up to 1/125. Without MLU (I don't think the 645N has MLU either) I try to stick to 1/500 to 1/60, and longer than 1 second. The shake and noise startled me the first time I shot a MF camera. Much louder and more forceful than the MX.
3. Slides are magical, especially big ones. If you do any landscapes in good light, treat yourself to a roll of Provia sometime =)
4. I kind of regret not going Pentax for MF, but the ETRS stuff was a bit cheaper, more modular, leaf shutters with all lenses, and I shoot almost all B&W, so the slightly cooler rendering of my lenses isn't a big deal. They're all VERY sharp, though!
Enjoy the bigger negatives! Try not to end up a film size junkie like me, and run off and buy a couple 4x5 cameras ;)
|
|
Forum: Film SLRs and Compact Film Cameras
03-06-2014, 04:27 PM
|
| |
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.
|
|
Forum: Film SLRs and Compact Film Cameras
03-06-2014, 08:58 AM
|
| |
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.
|
|
Forum: Film SLRs and Compact Film Cameras
03-05-2014, 03:46 PM
|
| |
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.
|
