Fujifilm Announces Film Price increases

[Klainmeister]

it's that price now... where are you getting it for less?

Yeah you're right.

 

[ntenny]

I pretty much only use Fuji for E-6, and while 10% isn't that big a jump in itself, when you add up the recent price increases and the expense of processing, the cost per frame in 35mm is starting to get kind of bad. I'm wondering again if it makes sense to get a metered, handholdable 645 and shoot less 35mm. (But the 35mm lenses! I can't imagine I'd find a MF lens with the character of a 50/1.5 Sonnar, would I? And I rarely shoot verticals, which most 645s seem to favor...oh, I dunno.)

-NT

 

[Roger Cole]

My Mamiya 645 Pro shoots horizontals when held normally, FWIW. It's easy enough to turn for verticals, at least with the winder grip which I also have. It's certainly big compared to my 35mm Pentaxes, but it handles easily and the lenses are superb. Can't compare them to 50 1.5 Sonnar though, as I've no experience with one of those.

 

[georg16nik]

..I can't imagine I'd find a MF lens with the character of a 50/1.5 Sonnar, would I?..

50/1.5 Sonnar magic is only in 135 RF and its worth every shot.
MF shines with other niceties.

 

[ntenny]

My Mamiya 645 Pro shoots horizontals when held normally, FWIW. It's easy enough to turn for verticals, at least with the winder grip which I also have. It's certainly big compared to my 35mm Pentaxes, but it handles easily and the lenses are superb. Can't compare them to 50 1.5 Sonnar though, as I've no experience with one of those.

Well, *that* was an enabling post. I just pulled the trigger on an M645 outfit from KEH. Didn't realize how inexpensive they'd gotten! It defaults to vertical, but I'll manage.

-NT

 

[erikg]

Defaults to vertical? Which camera did you get? Mamiya 645 slr is in landscape format normally.

 

[ntenny]

Defaults to vertical? Which camera did you get? Mamiya 645 slr is in landscape format normally.

It does? That'd be a nice surprise---the material I found online suggested that the first generation were vertical and they switched to horizontal around the time of the Pro. Detailed information seems kind of thin on the ground for these cameras, though.

-NT

 

[StoneNYC]

It does? That'd be a nice surprise---the material I found online suggested that the first generation were vertical and they switched to horizontal around the time of the Pro. Detailed information seems kind of thin on the ground for these cameras, though.

-NT

Do you learn from car manufacturing? You NEVER buy the first version...


~Stone

The Noteworthy Ones - Mamiya: 7 II, RZ67 Pro II / Canon: 1V, AE-1 / Kodak: No 1 Pocket Autographic, No 1A Pocket Autographic

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[MattKing]

It does? That'd be a nice surprise---the material I found online suggested that the first generation were vertical and they switched to horizontal around the time of the Pro. Detailed information seems kind of thin on the ground for these cameras, though.

-NT

None of the Mamiya 645 cameras - from the initial 645 in 1975 to the last AFDIII - shoot in a native vertical orientation.

Are you sure that you aren't confusing this with the Bronica RF?

 

[StoneNYC]

None of the Mamiya 645 cameras - from the initial 645 in 1975 to the last AFDIII - shoot in a native vertical orientation.

Are you sure that you aren't confusing this with the Bronica RF?

Are you sure? I remember reading about an early Mamiya that was in vertical format.


~Stone

The Noteworthy Ones - Mamiya: 7 II, RZ67 Pro II / Canon: 1V, AE-1 / Kodak: No 1 Pocket Autographic, No 1A Pocket Autographic

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[MattKing]

Are you sure? I remember reading about an early Mamiya that was in vertical format.


~Stone

The Noteworthy Ones - Mamiya: 7 II, RZ67 Pro II / Canon: 1V, AE-1 / Kodak: No 1 Pocket Autographic, No 1A Pocket Autographic

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I'm sure about the 645 SLRs.

Although there could be an older folder that I am unaware of.

 

[StoneNYC]

I'm sure about the 645 SLRs.

Although there could be an older folder that I am unaware of.

I think I'm just thinking about the RZ67/RB67 645 back which is vertical? Oh we'll, the OP can tell us when he/she gets it in the mail


~Stone

The Noteworthy Ones - Mamiya: 7 II, RZ67 Pro II / Canon: 1V, AE-1 / Kodak: No 1 Pocket Autographic, No 1A Pocket Autographic

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[StoneNYC]

Err not OP but poster who bought the 645


~Stone

The Noteworthy Ones - Mamiya: 7 II, RZ67 Pro II / Canon: 1V, AE-1 / Kodak: No 1 Pocket Autographic, No 1A Pocket Autographic

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Roger Cole]

Well, *that* was an enabling post. I just pulled the trigger on an M645 outfit from KEH. Didn't realize how inexpensive they'd gotten! It defaults to vertical, but I'll manage.

-NT

Yeah, they're pretty affordable. I bought mine on here for $450, which may sound like a lot but included the 80mm 2.8N lens, AE Prism finder, winder grip, and two 120 backs with inserts. I bought a couple more backs, inserts, and one 220 insert because I also have some 220 Optima 400 I got frozen (which works perfectly.) I got a Polaroid back for free from someone on another forum who had bought it for his earlier model 645 thinking it would work - I offered to pay for it. Yes, the image is small, but it's useful for proofing and kind of fun, even though you have to remove the winder grip to use it which makes it kind of a PITA to swap back and forth. Then I picked up the 55mm and 150mm N lenses from B&H. The whole thing adds up to a pretty darned heavy camera bag if I take it all (plus filters, film, cable release etc.) but it's very capable.

 

[ntenny]

By the way, I'm sorry to threadjack, but we went from bemoaning a price increase to discussing the virtues of a camera, which seems like a step up, doesn't it? It's due in the mail around New Year's Day, and I'll try to give it a quick smoke test on b&w film first off.

To get semi-back on topic, I got this camera partly with the idea of using it to take over some of the "random family photo" duties that 35mm E-6 currently holds down. I figure that without taking the coming price increase into account, I'm paying something like $17 (including film and processing) for 37 frames of 35mm, vs. $13 for 16 frames of 645, for Provia 100F. So the MF alternative is less than twice the price per frame of 35mm, and if I can see a "hit rate" with the Mamiya comparable to what I'm used to getting in medium format, I might well come out ahead on a "per keeper shot" basis. It clearly won't replace my 35mm cameras completely---did I mention that 50/1.5 Sonnar?---but it actually competes in their niche.

Incidentally, if my 35mm price of 46 cents per frame is typical, I wonder how it stacks up with past prices when adjusted for inflation. I know film is cheap by historical standards, but I don't know how much slide processing cost thirty or forty years ago.

-NT

 

[Roger Cole]

One minor point - some 645 cameras (Bronica, I think) get 16 shots on a roll but the Mamiya 645 gets 15, or at least my Pro does.

Hit rate may be better, maybe not. The metering in the AE Prism finder seems to be spot on, but it depends what you've been shooting. It isn't a matrix meter, not really. It does have spot, averaging, and a mix that works a bit like a primitive matrix mode. It does have exposure memory lock so I meter, lock (partial press on the release) and re-compose and shoot just like I do with my Richoh (can't with the LX which lacks this handy feature.) Focusing will be more critical too so that could be a bit slower. But the prism is fairly bright and it's pretty easy to focus IMO.

I THINK I was paying about $5-$6 a roll in the mid to late 80s. I started doing it myself for about $2 and it seems it was about half to one third the cost.

 

[ntenny]

I didn't get the AE prism, just the metering PD prism, but I don't use AE much in 35mm either and it should be a wash in that respect. I think my hit rate is mostly limited by the psychology of shooting different formats rather than by exposure---you know how one burns 35mm film casually and is a little more careful with MF film, more careful still with sheets, and I don't know how I'll end up handling 645 in practice. Even if I end up spending more per keeper, the extra image real estate seems like it'll be worth it, and I like the 3x4 aspect ratio better than 2x3 for most purposes anyway. Thanks, you shameless enabler.

-NT

 

[Roger Cole]

Don't mention it.

BTW did you get the winder grip? That will tend to make you shoot faster, but it also makes the camera handle better IMO.

On and did I tell you how much I like shooting with my 4x5 Linhof?

 

[lxdude]

One minor point - some 645 cameras (Bronica, I think) get 16 shots on a roll but the Mamiya 645 gets 15, or at least my Pro does.

I don't know about the RF 645, but the ETR series gets 15. The Pentax 645 gets 16.

 

[MattKing]

The 645 backs for the RB67 get 16.

 

[rolleiman]

Will freelances be able to charge 10% extra on their fees to compensate? All the evidence is that while costs are increasing, fees from stock photography are on a downward curve.

 

[PKM-25]

Will freelances be able to charge 10% extra on their fees to compensate? All the evidence is that while costs are increasing, fees from stock photography are on a downward curve.

I still do well enough in stock, but that is because I saw what was coming over 15 years ago and created a rare niche. I also rep my own stock, do NOT have it anywhere on the Internet and do not shoot film for stock.

Stock bieng on the decline has nothing at all to do with the cost of film and everything to do with too many people giving away images, the rat race of digital tools and of course last but not least, the very worst thing to invade the arts and the demand for truly creative works:

The Internet.

 

[StoneNYC]

I still do well enough in stock, but that is because I saw what was coming over 15 years ago and created a rare niche. I also rep my own stock, do NOT have it anywhere on the Internet and do not shoot film for stock.

Stock bieng on the decline has nothing at all to do with the cost of film and everything to do with too many people giving away images, the rat race of digital tools and of course last but not least, the very worst thing to invade the arts and the demand for truly creative works:

The Internet.

If I could understand the things they ask for with stock I would at least have some up, I'm so clueless...


~Stone

The Noteworthy Ones - Mamiya: 7 II, RZ67 Pro II / Canon: 1V, AE-1 / Kodak: No 1 Pocket Autographic, No 1A Pocket Autographic

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[marcmarc]

In 135mm format, Ilford has Fuji beat with the three pack of FP4. For this reason I started shooting some FP4 after seven years. What a great film! I think I gave up on it because back then I was fairly new to developing and printing and I always got blown highlights. While FP4 in 120 may still cost more, I picked up 20 rolls to use once my Acros runs out. Maybe Ilford will make a lesser prices five pack of FP4 in 120 as well. Keeping my fingers crossed.

 

[Roger Cole]

FP4 is a great film. So is Acros. They look pretty different though. I've settled on FP4+ since Plus-X died but I've been shooting some Acros lately and have to say I really like it.

There isn't enough price difference between these films to make that a deciding factor unless you are shooting a LOT of film and, even then, it will probably get swamped in the "noise" of chemical and paper costs.