 Robert M. Dutton |
Making the Move to Medium Format I want to move to medium format. I like the idea of 6x4.5 and 6x7 aspect ratios for composition and reproduction. Because of the ratios, these cameras are in higher demand and thus more expensive than the 6x6 by respective brands. Is it wise to go ahead and get the 6x6 and compose by imagining the ratios through the viewfinder? Are there 6x6 ones with imprinted ratio lines? Or should I go with the 6x4.5/6x7 types?
|
|
|
|
||
|
Terry L. Long |
It depends on WHY you're taking the photograph. If you plan on getting published with full page or cover spreads, magazine art directors prefer the 6x4.5 because there'd be less cropping. The 6x6 and 6x7 formats are more square and would have to be cropped quite a bit.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Robert M. Dutton |
The main reason I want to move to MF is for portraiture. Both studio and weddings inside and out. I am really leaning towards the ETRSi because of its value per $. If I had indispensable funds I would run out and get a Mamiya AFD - I have held one before ... sexy! I'm really not concerned with the bulkiness.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Gregg Vieregge |
With digital making it's big move in the market, You can pick up a Bronica ERSTI body for around $350 or a complete system for under $750. It's light weight and easy to use. Because of the 645 format you get more images per roll of film. I would really suggest exploring a digital camera first to be absolutely sure what direction you really want to go. If film is your preference, the Bronica is a great camera. Go to www.natcam.com to see their used camera prices.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Robert M. Dutton |
Yes I have been really eyeing that ETRSi. I have thought about digital. But the cost per/ image quality is the main concern. When I can get the same level of pixelization as silver halide crystals for a decent price I will go for it. I clearly recognize the benefits of digital imaging, as well as the cost. As I generate some revenue with my film based equiment, digital will be the spring board in which I advance in my endevors. Thanks for the advice
|
|
|
|
||
|
Michael McCullough |
I just picked up a used Minolta Autocord,in mint condition,I've personally found it to be perfect for my needs ,landscapes enviromental portraits,but it has been like breaking in new work boots, there surely is a learning curve,I am though,really enjoying the medium format adventure,and the images are very very sharp with a great feel to them!!!!
|
|
|
|
||
|
David Robinson |
If you are going to use the camera for weddings I would not recommend 6x45.You will be straining your arm rotating the camera for vertical shots and then returning for horizontal shots.This is more especially so if you are using fill-in-flash. If you are going to have some control over the cropping of the final print I would strongly recommend using 6x6 and crop the image in the darkroom.It is much less tiring.The apparant attraction of 6x45 is more in the mind than in practice. Not for nothing is the 6x6 Hasselblad the industry standard for weddings,(that is before digital came along). Beware going headlong into digital though.Not enough space to itemise all the draw backs. Cost of professional gear being the prime one.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Peter K. Burian |
Robert: A friend of mine shoots about 25 weddings a year and he bought the Pentax 645. As with any camera that does not produce a square image, that means rotating it for vertical shots. On the other hand, unless you plan to make square prints, you'll crop much of a square image area if you use a 6x6 camera. My view is to try to fill the frame with a subject using most of the image area (with 645, 6x7 etc.) and not need to crop all the time. But lots of wedding/portrait pros use the 6x6 format so there is no right answer. Cheers! Peter Burian
|
|
|
|
||
|
This old forum is now archived. Use improved Forum here
Report this Thread |
||