Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by cube, Feb 8, 2010.
Same designer id have to imagine:
Fuji's Polaroid/Instant Packfilm FP-1
Look suspiciously like the 'new' 6x7 camera that Fuji announced in September 2008...
Let's hope it's getting a little closer to release.
Pentax will announce their new digital medium format camera 645D on March 11th.
OMG I must buy that. (the Fuji one that the OP posted)
I love me some Medium Format, a modern design would be great next to my 1956 Minolta Autocord TLR (<-- amazing optics) & Holga CFN.
My wife and I are in Vegas doing some playing this week/weekend.
We stopped by the new "City Center" MGM Mega-Hotel(s)/Casino(s) today and checked out an incredible gallery of landscape shots...taken all over the world on Arca-Swiss 8x10 cams. Absolutely, without a doubt, the most incredible enlargements I've EVER seen! I don't think there was a shot less than 6 or 7 feet wide.
After this experience, I have a whole new appreciation from Medium and Large Format view cameras. That would be a fun tangent to take in this hobby, albeit, a spendy tangent. Just a package of 10 8x10 film sheets/slides is $80! Gotta make the shot count, I suppose
Seriously though...I was amazed at the detail and dynamic range in those shots. Any landscape photography fans should definitely check out the gallery if in Vegas. Kinda bummed I didn't catch the name...but it was awesome
There's plenty of older Fuji rangefinders around.
I owned a Fuji GW670III for a few years - fantastic camera. I'm sure these can be bought on eBay for a lot less than this new camera will cost. The GW60III was less than $1000 new.
Rangefinders, medium/large format, kick ass.
Yeah, you gotta love anything that makes lovely big prints and has bellows
I got an Agfa 6X9 folder. It is fun and affordable, and a good way to try film again, or maybe for the first time.
Results? Slow and tedious operation, lots of steps and things to remember, it is hard to believe (great)grandparents used these and got decent results.
Are the images sharper than those of digital? No, even my old 6mp D40's images are clearly sharper than 35mm and about the same as the 6X9s. And of course the D40 has flash, zooms, low-light, etc, etc, etc.
Shooting with digital is clearly the best choice for all but a very few, very dedicated photographers.
Film, though, has a "look" that is appealing in some cases. I don't know if it is just me and the way I do things, but I actually like the look of old buildings, etc better with the old camera. A vintage camera for vintage subjects, probably even people.
Film is fun, not a replacement for digital in my view, but you can pick up a nice old folder and play with it, and take it along for those shots and occasions that are compelling.
What I still want is a Mamiya 7.
Wow, really? Film is not a replacement for digital you say? How old are you exactly? I think film has been doing just a fine job for the past 100 years... And when you are talking Medium format, the only digital that will replace film are the $30,000 39mp digital backs for Hasselblads (I doubt your Canon or Nikon can replace a Hassy with 120 film though.)
It's not really expensive to shoot large format. You can buy a used camera setup for a few hundred dollars, les then any DSLR body. Good lenses are expensive but there are many older ones on the used market. 50 year olds lenses still are very usable. If you limit your self to 4x5 it will cost you about $1 per exposure. If you are doing land scape work you will only be shooting 8 to 10 exposures per day at most. You spend most of you time waiting, waiting for the light jusr before sunset and waiting for that little puff of wind to die and waiting for the $#*^ airplane to move out of the shot.
When you add up the cost of the film and camera it can be less then the cost of a dSLR. That $1000 SLR body can buy for years worth of film.
Today no one prints in darkrooms, you scan the sheet film and work onthe computer so it's easy to do yourself at home.
Medium format works out well also, Peole used to seeing DSLR phots are blown away by medium format film. It's dramatically better but then 4x5 is the way to go because it is even more different from DSLR.
The original "Live Preview":
Large and medium format, even 35mm, isnt hampered by CCD resolution...just your film's grain structure.
It's actually already released under another name
Ooh, I wish I didn't see this thread... I've been wanting a Medium Format Rangefinder for the longest time, I just never wound up getting one. And to have one as a [fairly] compact folder like this one, all the better!
It seems this is actually already released internationally (and here in the states) as the Voightlander Bessa III. Though at $2250 it is currently (and sadly) out of my price range; though the reviews are saying it is well worth the price.
Thanks for the information. I didn't realize the film didn't have to be developed and could be scanned in house.
I'm intrigued and am going to start looking into a MF system. I am still blown away by the detail on those 8x10 shots the other day.
Film does have to be developed. It's easy to develop black and white (requires some gear though), much more expensive to develop colour (requires more gear and temperature controlled water bath).
Home scanning is OK for large format - since it's such a big piece of film you can get good results even on a flatbed.
Medium format is more difficult to scan at home - not only because you need to scan at a higher resolution - but because you need a good scanner to properly read the shadows (film tends to get very dark in the shadows, you need a scanner with a high 'Dmax' value to pick these up).
I used to shoot lots of Medium Format (owned a Fuji 670, a Hasselblad, a Mamiya RZII) but I don't think that the film/scan route produces really good results unless you use a very good scanner like a drum scanner or an Imacon. You'll get better results from a Canon 5DII.
Thats why i shoot instant film!
It's a Fuji rebrand of the Voigtlander Bessa III.
We're talking medium format here.
You might get good results from instant film in 8x10, but in MF sizes the resolution sucks.
@funkboy, I guess you didn't read the thread very carefully, someone else already established that...
Either way, seems like a cool camera. The links to the reviews and photo results were very helpful genshi, thanks!