...if you feel the photographic fire burning inside you : do I spend 3000$ upgrading my gear to full frame SLR and XMAS, or do I spend that money on the real stuff, medium format film gear?
Ok I should have said "the only real question in case you are about to buy a full frame camera and feel the photographic fire burning inside you", but that'd be less catchy.
If you don't have a DSLR at all, get one. It's so convenient, gives you room to practice etc. It's not sufficient to fully explore the scope of your photographic potential, but it's a must have.
Back to Ze Biblical Question of our times: full frame or medium format film?
That is pretty clear to me:
Good luck getting those results with a digital camera, and it sucks you can't see the large prints, the tones, dynamic range, definition.
Now remember, I made the assumption you are a photography junky, you love the cause, you'd sell your PS3 to replace a lens. If you don't have that level of dedication, forget about film. You'll always be a 30% photographer then :p, covering 30% of the potential. Mwaaahahaha! I'm mean...and stupid because if you all shoot just digital, I'll be the only pulling amazing portraits. The fact is the real thing is medium and large format film.
What what? but my friends have a 5D MKII and I'm enviouuuus! With the biiig lenses they look soooo seriouuuus and proooo !
Ah...well, sorry you have to compensate for something, but this is about the images, not the how the gear looks on you. Anyway, you look way cooler with a vintage piece of gear than with a 5D.
On the left corner, weighting 3000 to 4000$:
On the right corner, weighting 3000$:
So here it is. The second choice is the one that is not guided by marketing or the safe feeling of buying the same as everyone else. It's the choice of passion. I won't even write a rational, just Google sample images.
Yes, you'll have to wait to see your picture, and learn how to expose properly, and the characteristics of each film, and focus manually, but it'll pay off. The shutter sound of a MF camera...oh yeah. You'll be thinking every shot, framing carefully, turn into a perfectionist machine to maximize your ratio of good shots. You'll find the pleasure of crafting, then be impatient to see the film developed. Instead of bombarding a village to hit one man, you'll be the sniper that needs one bullet to hit his target.
The truth is, if you go medium format film for portraits, you won't be able to go back to digital, this I can promise you.
Ok I should have said "the only real question in case you are about to buy a full frame camera and feel the photographic fire burning inside you", but that'd be less catchy.
If you don't have a DSLR at all, get one. It's so convenient, gives you room to practice etc. It's not sufficient to fully explore the scope of your photographic potential, but it's a must have.
Back to Ze Biblical Question of our times: full frame or medium format film?
That is pretty clear to me:
- If you shoot sports, wildlife, porn or anything that moves, get a full frame DSLR.
- If you shoot portraits, landscapes, and a lot of black and white get a medium format film camera.
Good luck getting those results with a digital camera, and it sucks you can't see the large prints, the tones, dynamic range, definition.
Courtesy of Pierre Herbert, Rest in Peace.
Now remember, I made the assumption you are a photography junky, you love the cause, you'd sell your PS3 to replace a lens. If you don't have that level of dedication, forget about film. You'll always be a 30% photographer then :p, covering 30% of the potential. Mwaaahahaha! I'm mean...and stupid because if you all shoot just digital, I'll be the only pulling amazing portraits. The fact is the real thing is medium and large format film.
What what? but my friends have a 5D MKII and I'm enviouuuus! With the biiig lenses they look soooo seriouuuus and proooo !
Ah...well, sorry you have to compensate for something, but this is about the images, not the how the gear looks on you. Anyway, you look way cooler with a vintage piece of gear than with a 5D.
On the left corner, weighting 3000 to 4000$:
- A great full frame DSLR, the Nikon D700
or soon to come out D800. A D700 now costs 2500$.
- Prime lenses that matches your expectations of greatness would be the 35mm f2 and the 85mm f1.4 . That costs from 400$ to 900$.
- Or a zoom lens for full frame, matching the D700 quality standards like the 24-70 F2.8, 1500$, for a result that is quite questionable regarding the money.
On the right corner, weighting 3000$:
- Let's go for the top, to mach the other corner, a Pentax 67II, used in mint condition from Adorama or B&H for 1200$
- 2 lenses, a portrait lens, a landscape lens, used from the same shops, 500$ each. Those will DESTROY the best SLR Nikon lenses. I mean destroy even the prime lenses. The zoom lenses, ah ah please, be serious for a sec, it beats even the best Leica M lenses. My Mamiya 200$ lenses already outperform all of that.
- A negative scanner. Yes you'll need that, the Epson Perfection V700
does a great job for 550$.
- Film. A roll developed costs about 8$ if the shop doesn't rip you off. You get 10 shots on it.
So here it is. The second choice is the one that is not guided by marketing or the safe feeling of buying the same as everyone else. It's the choice of passion. I won't even write a rational, just Google sample images.
Yes, you'll have to wait to see your picture, and learn how to expose properly, and the characteristics of each film, and focus manually, but it'll pay off. The shutter sound of a MF camera...oh yeah. You'll be thinking every shot, framing carefully, turn into a perfectionist machine to maximize your ratio of good shots. You'll find the pleasure of crafting, then be impatient to see the film developed. Instead of bombarding a village to hit one man, you'll be the sniper that needs one bullet to hit his target.
The truth is, if you go medium format film for portraits, you won't be able to go back to digital, this I can promise you.
No comments:
Post a Comment