While it is true that a move up from medium format to 4x5 increases
hassles, primarily bulk and weight, it is simply not true that a good
4x5 system (cameras and lenses) will be substantially (much less
enormously) more expensive than a 6x7 medium format system. Comparing
apples to apples, a top-of-the-line 67MF system will cost more than an
equivalent 4x5 system. Don't believe it? Go to the B & H website and
check the prices on all of the available 67MF camera bodies and lenses.
In fact, even a top-level 35mm system will be comparable in costs to an
equivalent 4x5 system. I shoot both 35mm and 4x5. In my 35mm bag I
have two Nikon bodies, an F100 and a D100; total cost new (when I
purchased them), $3000. I have six Nikon lenses, all top level f2.8
lenses zooms, plus the 200mm f4 micro, average costs purchased new,
about $1400 each. In my 4x5 bag I have a Wisner Expedition, purchased
new at $2195. I have six Schneider lenses, all purchased new, average
cost, about $1200 each.
In addition, the used equipment market for LF is every bit as active as
those for 35mm and MF. Indeed, again comparing apples to apples, I
believe a high quality used LF system can be put together for less money
than an equivalent used MF system.
Of course larger filters for larger lenses will be more expensive, and
film costs are higher.
Out of curiosity, I just now dropped each of these two bags on a set of
accurate scales. The results: Nikon system-30.25 lbs.; 4x5 system-31.5
lbs. One other note; the weight for the 4x5 system includes 20 film
holders; if you eliminate the holders, the total weight drops to an even
23 lbs., a full 7 lbs. less than my Nikon system. I no longer carry
film holders; I use nothing but ready-load film these days. So,
depending on the type 35mm or MF system one is comparing to the 4x5, the
weight argument does not even hold up. And one can get LF lenses that
are a fair bit lighter than the ones in my system.
And here is the final argument for 4x5-quality. If you think there is a
substantial quality improvement from 645 to 6x7, you ain't seen nothing
yet, baby! Like many LF photographers, I shot 35mm and MF for many
years before moving to 4x5. Now, for my "serious" photography, the
quality of 35mm or MF is just no longer acceptable anymore for me
personally. Even on prints as small as 8x10, which both 35mm and MF can
handle fine, the quality difference to my eye is there, and it is
significant. And when you talk about really large prints, 16x20 and
larger (I print digitally up to 44 x 60), well, there really is no
comparison. To borrow a quote from (I believe) David Muench, "I
consider a photograph taken with my 4x5 view camera to be the 'final
statement.'"
About the only disadvantage to LF is the obvious photography which
cannot be done with the methodical LF. This is why I also have my 35mm
Nikon system, for those situations.
Admittedly, LF is not for everyone; it is a completely different beast
than any other type of photography. But as demonstrated above, many of
the arguments against LF, primarily cost and weight, are misconceptions
and simply do not hold up under close scrutiny, especially when compared
to top-of-the-line 35mm or MF systems. Once you shoot 4x5, anything
less becomes intolerable.
Show quoted textHide quoted text
-----Original Message-----
From: Clayton Jones [mailto:cj@...]
Sent: Sunday, September 28, 2003 7:46 PM
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Digital BW] Re: OT MF film sizes
Hello Alex,
> I have been using 645 format and wish to obtain
> higher resolution for 16x20 prints. I have
> been seriously drooling over a Mamiya 7 or RB
> 67. A pro friend of mine, who has been great
> in evaluating my prints and giving good help
> says that a 'transition' from 6x4.5 to 6x7
> is not worth the effort and that if I want
> higher res, the only option is 4x5.
Of course 4x5 will make a greater difference than 6x7. The question
is whether it's worth the costs. Having used all three formats, I can
say that going from 645 to 67 will make a huge difference. It
increases the area by more than 50%. 6x7 negs are a joy to print, and
if you need to crop you have lots of real estate.
The problem with going to 4x5 is you get into view camera territory,
which you may or may not want. Costs and hassles increase enormously
(although a 4x5 neg is a gorgeous thing to work with).
IMO, the costs incurred by moving from 645 to 67 are worth it. Some
years ago I sold off a 67 system and built a 645 outfit, thinking I
wanted something smaller and lighter. I was so disappointed I sold
the 645 stuff and rebuilt a new 67 system again. I use the Pentax 67
system. Absolutely superb lenses.
Regards,
Clayton
Info on black and white digital printing at
http://www.cjcom.net/digiprnarts.htm
Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT
<http://rd.yahoo.com/M=262770.3825277.5149013.1473480/D=egroupweb/S=1705
019182:HM/A=1759951/R=0/SIG=133r2anun/*http:/www.flipalbum.com/ims/click
thru/?x=a_yahoo&y=Http%3A%2F%2Fwww.flipalbum.com%2Fims%2Fc%2Fc1> click
here
<http://us.adserver.yahoo.com/l?M=262770.3825277.5149013.1473480/D=egrou
pmail/S=:HM/A=1759951/rand=561118829>
Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and
other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to
unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this
same page.
Please follow these basic guidelines:
- Include your full name with your message.
- Include the address of your website, if you have one.
- As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to
keep them short.
- As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject
header.
- Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or flames
- Complete your Yahoo profile.
- Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various
resources on the homepage.
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo!
<http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> Terms of Service.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]