Ad
Ad
Ad
Poll
Question: Is MF worth the money and trouble?
Yes it is - 64 (58.2%)
No it is not - 23 (20.9%)
I keep changing my mind - 23 (20.9%)
Total Voters: 110

Pages: « 1 [2] 3 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Is MF worth the money and trouble?  (Read 4040 times)
marcmccalmont
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1724



« Reply #20 on: November 24, 2013, 07:14:58 AM »
ReplyReply

Worth It!  Smiley
Marc
Logged

Marc McCalmont
ndevlin
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 537



WWW
« Reply #21 on: November 24, 2013, 08:24:33 AM »
ReplyReply

For me, yes.

No matter what other cameras I use, I always keep coming back to MF.  Whether in film or digital, MF cameras simply give me a user experience that I really enjoy, and which other formats do not provide. In particular, the subject viewing experience with my MF cameras (Fuji 690s, Mamiya 6, H4D) is particularly pleasing to me.

I won't use adjectives because that simply invites endless, pointless debate. But I will say that, when things go right, my MF cameras give me results which make me very happy - happier than 35mm.  Making it worth the time and not-insignificant trouble & money.

But this is a very personal thing.  No one can credibly suggest that MF is a professional or creative imperative nowadays for almost any kind of work (yes, there are exceptions).  One uses these cameras because (i) you can and (ii) you like it.

Happy hunting,

- N.

follow me on Twitter https://twitter.com/onelittlecamera
Logged

Nick Devlin   @onelittlecamera
Yelhsa
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 106


WWW
« Reply #22 on: November 24, 2013, 09:12:34 AM »
ReplyReply

No it's not worth either the money or the trouble - if the truth be told - but then neither is falling in love.

And I think that's what it's like - you will either love working with it or you won't - and if you do, then just like being in love, the money and trouble that it may cause you, won't really matter Smiley

So if you were to ask me 'Why do I use a MF system' - my answer would simply be 'Because I love working with it', rather than because it saves me money or it hassle free or it even helps me make more money, etc, etc.

 


Logged

synn
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 505



WWW
« Reply #23 on: November 24, 2013, 08:20:17 PM »
ReplyReply

As someone shooting a D800 and looking to move to MF shortly, yes. It is worth it for my needs.
It isn't about this vs that. I am sure the D800 suits a lot of people. Just that for my style of shooting, an MF camera is a better fit.
Logged

my portfolio: www.sandeepmurali.com
tim wolcott
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 467


WWW
« Reply #24 on: November 24, 2013, 10:13:27 PM »
ReplyReply

I use the Phase One IQ280.  Is it worth it well yes.  I can use anything but nothing gives me the results or the 280.  And yes I have tried them all.  The quality, size of file, accuracy of image and nearly unlimited focal lengths which I have 3 zooms and 10 fixed.  Of course the magnificent Capture One to pair with it.  Surely its expensive but what isn't when you want the best.  If you want to race a car its expensive.  Tim
Logged
Carl Glover
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 133



WWW
« Reply #25 on: November 25, 2013, 08:06:03 AM »
ReplyReply

It's worth every penny!

I do a lot of LP covers and a decent Medium Format file can fill a triple gatefold cover with ease.

I also use 35mm digital and film too, but the way I work with a medium format camera is far more considered - I think it's the chimney finder!

Logged

bcooter
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1159


Bang The Drum All Day


WWW
« Reply #26 on: November 25, 2013, 01:28:35 PM »
ReplyReply

It's worth every penny!

I do a lot of LP covers and a decent Medium Format file can fill a triple gatefold cover with ease.

I also use 35mm digital and film too, but the way I work with a medium format camera is far more considered - I think it's the chimney finder!



Whatever you shot this with I love.

http://www.alephstudio.co.uk/post/50410483973

Though I think it's more you than the camera.

I understand the slow and thoughtful approach and if a camera gets you there, it's worth it.  In fact it's always worth it if you like the process and the results.

Everybody comes at this differently, but it's always about the results.

IMO

BC
« Last Edit: November 25, 2013, 01:30:18 PM by bcooter » Logged

amsp
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 788


« Reply #27 on: November 25, 2013, 03:44:06 PM »
ReplyReply

It's worth every penny!

I do a lot of LP covers and a decent Medium Format file can fill a triple gatefold cover with ease.

I also use 35mm digital and film too, but the way I work with a medium format camera is far more considered - I think it's the chimney finder!



Beautiful design work Carl, kudos.
Logged
Phil Indeblanc
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1107


« Reply #28 on: November 25, 2013, 03:56:47 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
but the way I work with a medium format camera is far more considered - I think it's the chimney finder!

I think THAT is the biggest difference in the formats for most. Its the working approach, and the view you see. It allows for much better composition and idea of the overall image before taking it. If 35 had a way to show you the frame with bright large undsitorted preview, than you got yourself a winner.  I prefer looking through my RZ than I do the crop glass I have on the sliding back I have to use the loop with. Yes, I use the loop on the RZ too, but easier faster and larger. That mirror is huge!
Logged

If you buy a camera, you're a photographer...
ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7642


WWW
« Reply #29 on: November 25, 2013, 04:20:20 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

I have three finders for my 555ELD. Waist level finder, which I find utterly useless. I also have a Hartblei chimney type finder. I have three issue with that one:

1) Make view position lower, so I need tripod legs short for comfortable viewing. Upsets balance and makes tripod top heavy. (I am a short person and the Arca Swiss D4 stands pretty tall)

2) The MF back is in the way, I need to bend over the camera to look in the chimney. I often stand on the side where I have a more comfortable viewing position.

3) I have problems with inverted view when using a ball head. The Arca Swiss D4 is OK, where I can adjust rotations one at a time, but using chimney on BH55 gives me nausea. No jokes.

What works best for me is the PM5 prism finder.

Best regards
Erik

I think THAT is the biggest difference in the formats for most. Its the working approach, and the view you see. It allows for much better composition and idea of the overall image before taking it. If 35 had a way to show you the frame with bright large undsitorted preview, than you got yourself a winner.  I prefer looking through my RZ than I do the crop glass I have on the sliding back I have to use the loop with. Yes, I use the loop on the RZ too, but easier faster and larger. That mirror is huge!
« Last Edit: November 26, 2013, 05:16:50 PM by ErikKaffehr » Logged

Phil Indeblanc
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1107


« Reply #30 on: November 26, 2013, 05:36:48 PM »
ReplyReply

Funny  how we have these equipment ergonomic differences.

I too have another viewfinder on the RZ, the mirror with a flip loop. THis makes things dark and more like working with a 35MM, so the chimney style I prefer. True I too get frustrated with the slider and often I shoot level or down, and even at my 6+height, it is difficult and often results in getting the stepstool out.
Remote EVF !! I'm sure there already is one, but I rather do the step stool than drop $3K for one as I would imagine it.  I think Rollie had some device or focusing assisting tool...ahh, so many tools.  I really like the 5DM2 live view, although I have to change the setting in dark setups to see, which is a pain, but I think its in the right direction.

Logged

If you buy a camera, you're a photographer...
BobDavid
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1078


« Reply #31 on: November 26, 2013, 08:05:03 PM »
ReplyReply

Medium format is great. 35MM digital is great. MFT is great. It all boils down to what is called for. I wouldn't use a ball-peen hammer to frame a house. I wouldn't write a check with a pencil. If I didn't have to schlep stuff around, I'd drive a subcompact instead of a crossover. If I wanted to shoot video, I'd use a $1,300 video camera instead of a $1,300 MFT camera. Tools are tools. There are lots of different types of screwdrivers. Some are better for some tasks, some are better for others. 

Is MF worth the money and trouble? Rent one and see what you think. And of course, there is always the cost to benefit ratio to consider. If you can bill out enough to pay for an MF back, camera body and lens within a year, great! If you are wealthy, don't lose sleep over the matter. If you are an enthusiast, that's a personal decision.

Logged
Phil Indeblanc
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1107


« Reply #32 on: November 26, 2013, 08:35:10 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
There are lots of different types of screwdrivers
I like this one!


I think all Members who have this understanding should copy paste Bob's post everytime it comes up...Who is willing to sign and agree to it? :-)

Quote
Medium format is great. 35MM digital is great. MFT is great. It all boils down to what is called for. I wouldn't use a ball-peen hammer to frame a house. I wouldn't write a check with a pencil. If I didn't have to schlep stuff around, I'd drive a subcompact instead of a crossover. If I wanted to shoot video, I'd use a $1,300 video camera instead of a $1,300 MFT camera. Tools are tools. There are lots of different types of screwdrivers. Some are better for some tasks, some are better for others.

Is MF worth the money and trouble? Rent one and see what you think. And of course, there is always the cost to benefit ratio to consider. If you can bill out enough to pay for an MF back, camera body and lens within a year, great! If you are wealthy, don't lose sleep over the matter. If you are an enthusiast, that's a personal decision.
Logged

If you buy a camera, you're a photographer...
ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7642


WWW
« Reply #33 on: November 26, 2013, 10:45:02 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

The numbers say it is worth it.

My personal experience is that I bought a P45+ for Hasselblad V, much to find out. It doesn't feel like a good decision but I actually like to use the stuff. There is a gain in resolution over my Sony Alpha 99 (24MP). How it would compare to a 36MP Nikon or Sony, I have no idea.

High end MFD, like IQ180 makes a lot more sense to me, but comes at a much higher price.

Subjects matter more than cameras.

Best regards
Erik



This question keeps popping up. We all have an opinion, let's see what the numbers say.

Edmund
Logged

Richard Osbourne
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 27


WWW
« Reply #34 on: November 27, 2013, 07:42:25 AM »
ReplyReply

It's totally worth it for me. Tried a D800e and didn't get on with it.
Can't do what I do with the P45+, Cambo and an old AFD on any 35mm camera. The Schneider lenses on the Cambo deserve a special mention here.
The more I use this system, the more gobsmacked I am at the image quality.
Ergonomically, they are a nightmare, but, you know what they say: you have to suffer for your art.
Logged

Go Go
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 122


WWW
« Reply #35 on: November 27, 2013, 01:03:17 PM »
ReplyReply

Totally worth it, and I would miss it if it were not available.
Logged

mikeSF_
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 7


« Reply #36 on: December 03, 2013, 08:33:19 AM »
ReplyReply

worth it!
trouble? what trouble?
Logged
EricWHiss
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2427



WWW
« Reply #37 on: December 03, 2013, 10:34:41 AM »
ReplyReply

worth it!
trouble? what trouble?


+1
Logged

Authorized Rolleiflex Dealer:
Find product information, download user manuals, or purchase online - Rolleiflex USA
ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7642


WWW
« Reply #38 on: December 04, 2013, 11:14:09 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

I would be interested in your take on ultra wides and T&S. I don't know about the Rollei offerings, but the Hasselblad V series bottoms out at 40/4, Hasselblad H (which is 6x4.5) has lenses down to 28 mm. I have a flexbody for T&S but it is not really easy to use in the field. There are technical cameras, of course.

Best regards
Erik


+1
Logged

JV
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 641


« Reply #39 on: December 05, 2013, 06:38:14 AM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

I would be interested in your take on ultra wides and T&S. I don't know about the Rollei offerings, but the Hasselblad V series bottoms out at 40/4, Hasselblad H (which is 6x4.5) has lenses down to 28 mm. I have a flexbody for T&S but it is not really easy to use in the field. There are technical cameras, of course.

Best regards
Erik


Erik,

FYI, Last Photokina Hasselblad also introduced a 24mm:
http://www.hasselblad.com/products/h-system/lenses/hcd-4824mm.aspx

Thanks, Joris.
Logged
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad