File :-(, x, )
Anonymous
Hey /p/

Anyone have recommendations on a decent but inexpensive medium format camera?
EXIF data available. Clickhereto show/hide.
Camera-Specific Properties:Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS2 WindowsImage-Specific Properties:Image Width4504Image Height3472Number of Bits Per Component8, 8, 8Compression SchemeUncompressedPixel CompositionRGBImage OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution300 dpiVertical Resolution300 dpiImage Data ArrangementChunky FormatImage Created2006:09:14 18:50:14Color Space InformationsRGBImage Width1024Image Height768
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
HASSELBLAD
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
If you don't mind manual metering, old-school TLRs aren't bad. I use a Yashica-A that cost me about $30.
>> Anonymous
I meant film, not digital.
>> Anonymous
Wow, quick responses. I was referring to my original post not to either of you. I think that Pentax is digital.
>> heavyweather !4AIf7oXcbA
I got my Mamiya 645 kit for like $150, lens included (the Sekor 80mm f/1.9, too, the fastest medium format lens ever made.)
>> EvenSteven !!RBDL+S5h60X
>Sekor 80mm f/1.9, too, the fastest medium format lens ever made.

Uhh, maybe for M645
>> heavyweather !4AIf7oXcbA
>>164476
As far as I know, the fastest for any medium format camera. The next fastest I've heard of is an 80mm f/2 for Contax 645s. If there's a faster, I'd love to hear about it. Links plox?
>> Anonymous
>>164476
While I'm no expert on medium format, I've always heard the lens in question referred to as the fastest. Which makes sense that the fastest medium format lens would cover the smallest format.

The only thing faster I can think of is that Zeiss f/.7 lens, but that wasn't a normal production lens. There's probably about a dozen of them floating around.
>> EvenSteven !!RBDL+S5h60X
>>164478

Zeiss 50mm f0.7

Specially built for NASA and used on Hasselblads to take photos on the moon.

However its best known for being used to film the candlelight scene in Barry Lyndon. Kubrick somehow got his hands on a couple and had a very expensive, state of the art video camera hacked apart so it could use the lens.
>> Anonymous
>>164480
See

>>164479

It doesn't count.
>> Anonymous
>>164480
Also, it was used to the film the whole movie, I believe the lens mount was modified also, it was a film camera, not video, and it was your run of the mill Arri. Expensive for us, but for studios who make millions on every film, it's cheap. The camera probably cost less than the film stock, especially considering how Kubrick was known for doing loads of takes.
>> Anonymous
>>164457
If you don't mind old East German stuff, Pentacon Six is a very usable MF camera with tons of lenses available that sells for ridiculously cheap prices.
>> Anonymous
Yashica Mat 124
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>164494
>Also, it was used to the film the whole movie
No it wasn't. Just the absurdly low-light scenes.
>> Anonymous
is that some Pentax 645 Digital in OP?

what would be better for ultimate image quality

Canon 1Ds or Pentax 645?
>> Anonymous
>>164652
Yeah, it's the 645.
>> Anonymous
absurdly high resolution 35mm equiv. vs. standard (low) resolution MF

whoever wins, we lose
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
CLACK, FUCK YEAH
>> Anonymous
>>164644
I heard that to give it the same look throughout the film, they used the same lens and pushed the film a stop, since they needed that lens and a one-stop push for the absurdly low-light scenes.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>164697
>I heard that to give it the same look throughout the film, they used the same lens and pushed the film a stop
Pretty sure you heard wrong. I base this belief on two factors:
1. The Wikipedia page for it disagrees with you. Which is certainly far from definitive, but...
2. I actually watched the damn thing a week or two ago, and the non-candlelight scenes look *extremely* different from the candlelight scenes. That f/0.7 was soft as your mom. Gave everything a very dreamy feel.
>> Anonymous
>>164733
I'll have to watch it again, but lenses can look awfully different at f/.7 and f/8. Though I doubt anyone has used a Noctilux at a smaller aperture than f/2.8, I'd imagine it looks pretty much like a conventional 50mm by f/5.6, except with lots of diffraction.
>> Anonymous
>>164652Canon 1Ds or Pentax 645?

bump for answer, what would produce better quality?
>> Anonymous
>>164766
I don't know about a first-version 1Ds, but later full frame digital does outresolve medium format film.

But really, is that what you want to make your decision on? If you want the look of a certain film, prefer a film workflow, or the ergonomics of a particular film body, or want to use a lens not available for digital, shoot film. If you want a look not offered by a film, prefer a digital workflow, or the ergonomics of a particular digital body, or want to use a lens not available for digital, shoot digital.
>> Anonymous
i'll never use them

i just wanted to know
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>164766
From the examples I've seen, the 1Ds wins. I've only seen the one example, though.