MF film

The23rdman

The23rdman

Suspended / Banned
Messages
13,582
Name
Dean
Edit My Images
No
I feel like a dirty intruder posting in here - especially as I don't own a film camera...

I've only very recently got back into digital after yet another hiatus, and this time around I'm determined to engage in personal projects alongside working in photography to keep my interest from waining.

To that end, I'm planning a portrait project on MF film. I guess a 645 and some kind of telephoto will do it. I've never shot MF but understand that the dof is greater than 35mm, which means that a portrait lens will be around 180mm? Is that right?

Recommendations gratefully received.
 
well - a comparison between actual dimension of 645 film format (41.5x56mm) and 24x36 (full frame digital or 35mm film) gives a 1.61 factor (measured on the diagonal, corner-corner).

For example with Mamiya 645 lenses it gives : (mamiya:35mm) of 35=22mm, 45=28mm, 55=34mm, 65=40mm, 80=50mm, 120=74mm, 150=93mm, 210=130mm and 300=186mm

Typical Bronica ETRS lenses are (bronica:35mm FF) 40=25mm 50=31mm 75=46.5mm 100=62mm 150=93mm 200=124mm 250=155mm 500=310mm

so, a 180mm lens on 645 is pretty much a 112mm equivalenf full frame lens... alternatively, take what you're favourite focal length on full frame digital was, and simply multiply by 1.61...
 
Last edited:
Thanks mate. 180 does sound about right for the look I'm after then. Specific lens recommendations then?
 
to expand slightly on the "corner to corner" distance, they're actually slightly different format factors, so taking the diagonal makes sense...

and the ratio comes from the old pythagoras bit... Diagonal for 645 is √((41.5*41.5)+(56*56)) = 69.7mm, Diagonal for 35mm is √((24*24)+(36*36)) = 43.266mm, and 69.7/43.266=1.61
 
That's a bit too geeky for me. ;)
 
The23rdman said:
Specific lens recommendations then?
Click to expand...

Can't really help on that score - I've used the Zenzanon 200mm f4.5 a few times (waaaay back in the day, never owned one, just rented it for specific gigs) and its a nice lens - to be honest, most MF lenses are actually lovely, IQ wise - I've found very few "dogs" - but in all honesty, I'm not much of a "people" shooter, and i'd cheerfully defer to the folk in here who DO shoot portraits etc. on a more regular basis.
 
I appreciate your input on both subjects... and for confirming that a more advanced intellect frequents this forum than the average on TP. :D
 
oh, i'm pretty much the F&C Section thickie... most of the technical conversations in here give me nosebleeds. :)
 
Bloody hell, I'm doomed then!
 
TheBigYin said:
oh, i'm pretty much the F&C Section thickie... most of the technical conversations in here give me nosebleeds. :)
Click to expand...
Oi! I'd just like to point out that I'm the official forum idiot :bat: Bloody cheek of it, posting in f&c and pretending to be stupid.
 
RaglanSurf said:
I'm the official forum idiot
Click to expand...

Ah, but you're accolade is TP-Wide, not just this corner of the board... I'm just daft compared to the big-brains that hang out in the F&C Gentlemens Club. Fortunately @Roberts generally keeps me from doing anything too embarrasing.
 
>understand that the dof is greater than 35mm

Depth of field is actually narrower as the film or sensor gets larger. So when you've got your kit and start shooting portraits you will find that you need smaller apertures to achieve the same depth of field as you would with an APS-C or full-frame digital camera.

This site has an excellent calculator which shows how much DoF you will have for a given film or sensor size, aperture, and subject distance:

http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html

For example, it calculates that with 6*4.5 film, a 180 mm lens, f/8 aperture and a subject distance of 5 feet, the depth of field is 0.15 feet.
At 10 feet distance and f/16 this increases to 1.28 feet.
 
As far as recommendations go, I'm not hugely up on MF stuff since going LF, but I have recently bought a Mamiya 645 super and 55mm lens. While that's too wide for you, I can A) recommend the camera, it's really nice to use, and B), here is a list of the available prime and zoom lenses available for it:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Mamiya_products#Prime

Sadly doesn't have the precise 180mm prime you're perhaps looking for, but 150 and 200 aren't a million miles away. :)
 
Kevin Allan said:
>understand that the dof is greater than 35mm

Depth of field is actually narrower as the film or sensor gets larger. So when you've got your kit and start shooting portraits you will find that you need smaller apertures to achieve the same depth of field as you would with an APS-C or full-frame digital camera.

This site has an excellent calculator which shows how much DoF you will have for a given film or sensor size, aperture, and subject distance:

http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html

For example, it calculates that with 6*4.5 film, a 180 mm lens, f/8 aperture and a subject distance of 5 feet, the depth of field is 0.15 feet.
At 10 feet distance and f/16 this increases to 1.28 feet.
Click to expand...
Yes, that's what I meant. I had just woken up. :)
 
Woodsy said:
As far as recommendations go, I'm not hugely up on MF stuff since going LF, but I have recently bought a Mamiya 645 super and 55mm lens. While that's too wide for you, I can A) recommend the camera, it's really nice to use, and B), here is a list of the available prime and zoom lenses available for it:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Mamiya_products#Prime

Sadly doesn't have the precise 180mm prime you're perhaps looking for, but 150 and 200 aren't a million miles away. :)
Click to expand...
Perfect, thank you. Looks like the 200mm is the one for me.
 
Mamiya 645 is a lovely camera if you don't need interchangeable backs (which would probably be superfluous for this kind of project). Perhaps the problem with many 645 cameras is that they shoot in landscape format, and turning them on their side to shoot portrait format is a PITA (definitely not worth attempting with a waist level finder) even with a prism because of weight. The Fuji 645s are different, being naturally portrait format, but are all much wider than you'd want. So that points you either towards a square 6*6 (lovely TLRs for £100 or so, and the Bronica SQ and Hasselblads for more and more again), or the Mamiya RB67 or RZ67 with rotating backs. Then choose a lens to suit. Budget will make a huge difference to the choice.
 
ChrisR said:
Mamiya 645 is a lovely camera if you don't need interchangeable backs (which would probably be superfluous for this kind of project). Perhaps the problem with many 645 cameras is that they shoot in landscape format, and turning them on their side to shoot portrait format is a PITA (definitely not worth attempting with a waist level finder) even with a prism because of weight. The Fuji 645s are different, being naturally portrait format, but are all much wider than you'd want. So that points you either towards a square 6*6 (lovely TLRs for £100 or so, and the Bronica SQ and Hasselblads for more and more again), or the Mamiya RB67 or RZ67 with rotating backs. Then choose a lens to suit. Budget will make a huge difference to the choice.
Click to expand...

Tbh, there is every chance that I will shoot this project in landscape anyway - I quite like that for my portraits - but thank you for the info.
 
That's certainly an option (as another bearded non-hipster).
 
The Pentax 645 range is no slouch either. Both the 150 and 200mm manual focus lenses can be picked up at very reasonable prices. Good glass too. I've a 645n with a 45, 75 and 150 combo and it's fun to use!
 
Cuchulainn said:
The Pentax 645 range is no slouch either. Both the 150 and 200mm manual focus lenses can be picked up at very reasonable prices. Good glass too. I've a 645n with a 45, 75 and 150 combo and it's fun to use!
Click to expand...
The 645 was my first choice. :)
 
:)


645 though ???, it feels like you might as well shoot 35mm, its oblong, there's no wiggle room and a landscape portrait on 645 won't be much bigger where it matters than a 35mm portrait errr portrait

first thing I thought from your initial post was 6x7, but 6x6 solves a lot more issues than it creates, just my opinion of course :D
 
I'm open to all opinions here - I've never used MF.
 
I use a Mamiya RZ67. Historically, I went the Mamiya route rather than Hasselblad because I liked the handling of the Mamiya and din't care for the way the Hasselblad handled. Clearly, a lot of people disagree with me :D but my point is that you shouldn't assume that you'll like the handling characteristics of any camera until you've tried it.

I've never used a roll film format smaller than 6x6, as I believe in "the bigger the better" and only compromise when a compromise seems sensible (like not using 20x24" cut film but 5x4" instead). With medium format, I wasn't worried enough about size and weight to make me consider a small size.

One factor that you may like to consider if shooting portraits is that a TLR doesn't have a flipping mirror (read that both ways - they're both true) to interrupt the view at the moment of exposure; so if you're watching the screen rather than the subject you should catch any blinks.

Edit to add: I also run a Mamiya C330f system.
 
Last edited:
StephenM said:
I use a Mamiya RZ67.
Click to expand...
As another RZ67 user I can confirm that they are perfect in every way, no compromises whatsoever;). Well, OK, some people complain about the weight. I use mine for landscapes so I'm not speaking first hand here, but I think the RZ67 plus the 180mm or 250 mm lens would be fine for portraits if you were either (a) using a tripod, or (b) using flash (you can sync at any speed) or (c) shooting outdoors in good light, perhaps with ISO 400 film (Portra 400 would be a good choice). The 110mm lens would be a good choice for portraits wider than head-and-shoulder, eg half-length or full-length.

I personally wouldn't attempt to handhold the RZ67 in low light indoors.
 
Last edited:
you can get fp100 backs for rz/rb67 too :)
you do need to be sure the shutter is acurate as it has p*** poor dynamic range

a tlr might be good as its so different too
 
Lots of good food for thought here. Thanks gang.
 
I tend to agree with young Jox, 6x6 gives you the best of both worlds (I know some disagree with cropping but I have no issues with it) and my suggestion would be a Mamiya C330 (F or S) with the 180mm lens or the 135mm both of which are stellar. You should be able to pick up the camera for about £150 and both the lenses are around £125-150 each. Just my tuppence worth.
 
i started off with a Bronica SQ-B and selling it was the worst thing ive ever done. Since then ive tried 6x45 (felt too small) and 6x7 (the camera is a huge lump and frankly a pita). But 6x6 just felt right and ive a feeling i will be back to it soon, i miss it a lot. The bronny was just the right size and weight, 6x6 stops you worrying about framing, bronnys are cheap and the lens quality is superb. The downside to the B was it doesnt meter but thats no great shakes in the scheme of things.
 
I've never used a medium format camera with a built in meter, but then my photography doesn't need one, and I prefer to use a hand held meter.

Some years ago (and I see from the date of the thread, it was 2006) I read an interesting post on APUG about the comparative handholdability of different medium format cameras at slow shutter speeds. I would be surprised if many here have read it, so it may be worth a look.
 
That's really interesting Stephen. Pity he didn't try a Bronnie as well!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top