At 23:25 12/18/00 , John P. wrote:
If I had more money, I would go with a Mamyia 7 - 6x7 and their
interchangeable lenses and the 35mm panorma option that the cameras have. I
have heard nothing but great great things about those.
When you first hold up a 6x9 "slide" your jaw will drop and you will drop
your super telephotos, dig up the tripod, and head for Yosemite....... : )
Like to hear what you decide upon.
John
Yes, 6x7 and larger is dramatic. It's on the boundary of medium and large
format. I know some who swear by the 6x7's for high end studio work.
If you project transparencies, versus printing them, your choices will be
very limited in projectors. There are very few models capable of 6x7 and
larger transparencies. What is available is extremely expensive. You have
more choices for projecting 6x6 and 645. There will still be "sticker
shock," but finding a used one is much easier.
I would agree the 3:4 aspect ratio of 645 is not far off from the 2:3 of
35mm. A 6x9 is the same 2:3 aspect ratio. Whether or not it "feels" like
35mm depends on the camera. The Mamiya 645's are built like the standard
6x6 box-shaped SLR, except the back is not removable and therefore there is
no dark slide. It does have a film insert though. Having had larger
enlargements done from both, 645 is a very distinct improvement. There are
some who would argue that 6x6 gets you more negative, but unless you make
square prints, you end up cropping and not using it all. The 3:4 aspect
ratio is between the 5x7 and 8x10, and fairly close to both (cropping very
little), making it ideal for prints in those sizes or (near) multiples of
them. The closest is 11x14. For common print sizes, 645 is more efficient
in film usage than a 6x6 square. To improve inherent resolution beyond 645
in common print sizes you must go to 6x7 or 6x9.
You will have to decide your budget, what you intend to use M/F for, and
what you desire as an output: transparencies for projection, transparency
and/or negative for printing, some combination, etc. I believe once you
can articulate to yourself what your desires and expectations are, and
compare them to the pros and cons of different frame sizes and types of
camera body (RF, TLR, SLR, etc.), you will have your answer. Then you will
need to find something within the budget. My goals and expectations for
M/F led me to 645. Yours could lead to something else entirely.
M/F has not replaced 35mm OM usage, but has supplemented it. It is used
when I know, or suspect, the final output will be a large print, and the
situation allows using equipment that large and heavy. You will discover
quickly, even with a 645, some of how you go about making images in M/F
will be different. For me, it is a more deliberative process. This has
spilled back into 35mm for some types of subject material.
If you want something that is a cross-breed between medium and large
format, look at the Fuji GX-680 III which has a 6x8 frame. It has all the
adjustments of a large format view camera and uses 120/220 roll film. An
interesting concept!
-- John
Has anyone dabbling in medium format found a scanning solution that
provides a high resolution scan and that is affordable, i.e., less
than $10K.
Winsor
--
Winsor Crosby
Long Beach, California, USA
mailto:wincros@xxxxxxxxxxx
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|