Moving from Digital to MF With Bronica ETRSi

Chris Lange

Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2009
Messages
770
Location
NY
Format
Multi Format

The holder is worth it. The V700/750 is -not- a viable scanner for archival scanning or print production without one, due to the fact that its scanning lenses are set to two fixed focal distances, and it lacks any sort of calibration for them (hence the better scanning holder which you focus to your individual scanner).
 

wiltw

Subscriber
Joined
Oct 4, 2008
Messages
6,439
Location
SF Bay area
Format
Multi Format

Ah, the age old debate about 'insufficient benefit' of 645 format...
  • Yes, 6x7 is 2.3x larger than the vertical size of 135 format, and
  • 4x5 is just short of 4x larger than the vertical size of 135.
  • No one disputes the benefit of 4x5 sheetfilm over 6x7 -- and it is a 'mere' 1.7x the vertical size of 6x7.
  • No one disputes the inadequacy of the APS film format (vs. 135) -- and 135 is a 'mere' 1.44x larger than the vertical size of APS film frame.

And 645 is 1.79x larger than the vertical size of the 135 format frame.
So if 1.44x larger makes a difference for 135 over APS, and if 1.7x makes a difference for 4x5 over 6x7, can someone justify why 1.79x is NOT 'enough of a difference' for 645 over 135 ?!
 

spijker

Member
Joined
Mar 20, 2007
Messages
625
Location
Ottawa, Canada
Format
Medium Format
wiltw said:
can someone justify why 1.79x is NOT 'enough of a difference' for 645 over 135 ?!
Click to expand...
I think that you're missing the point. The comparison is NOT 645 film versus 135 film but 645 film versus a flagship DSLR.

I tend to agree with Polyglot. I shoot 645 film with a Mamiya 645 Pro with N glass and a 21 Mp DSLR (Canon 5Dmk2 with L glass). If I compare BW darkroom prints with the digital (Noritsu) colour prints, there's not much quality difference with respect to resolution and sharpness. If pushed, I would say that the digital prints are a bit sharper than the darkroom prints. I use a glass negative holder and a Componon-S enlarger lens. 6x6 is pretty much the same resolution as 645 if printed rectangular, so yes, 6x7 would be a minimum to potentially beat the flagship DSLR. One can argue about the quality of the Mamiya N lenses and claim that with Zeiss glass it would be totally different. But I doubt that the Bronica lenses are all that much better than the Mamiya lenses.

I shoot film because I like the wet printing process and the prints better than the digital BW prints or inkjets done by a lab. Not because "film is superior". Both digital and films have their pros and cons but neither is superior. I don't bother with scanning film, too much hassle and no real benefit for me. If I need a colour print or a digital file, I'll use the DSLR. If I want to produce a BW print, I shoot film. That will give me the best quality.
 

Alan Gales

Member
Joined
Oct 16, 2009
Messages
3,253
Location
St. Louis, M
Format
Large Format
If you're after improved sharpness then skip the Bronica 645. If you are after a different look then try it out.

If I'm shooting sports, snapshots or Ebay photos then digital rules. For portraits, landscapes, and other "artistic" shots I prefer the look of film.

This is of course my opinion and some people actually prefer the digital look. Of course those people have no taste!
 

polyglot

Member
Joined
Jun 12, 2009
Messages
3,467
Location
South Australia
Format
Medium Format
Like spijker says. A good modern DSLR blows 135 out of the water in every possible way so any incremental improvement over 135 isn't relevant. 645 with the finest films will struggle to equal the quality of a D800. 6x7 will be better but only if you're shooting Ektar, TMX or similar. Put HP5 or 400TX in there and you can forget it, and that's without considering time spent developing/scanning/printing or the loss of ability to shoot clean high ISO with stabilisation.

I would also dispute the benefit of 4x5 over 6x7. Those are the formats that I shoot the most and I can frequently get a sharper print from my RZ than from my 4x5 because my RZ lenses are better than my LF lenses; I use the latter when I want movements or just to have a play.

One clear advantage of film though is that when making a small (8x10") wet print, you can get far better resolution onto the paper. A good enlarger lens will resolve down to as fine as you can see with a loupe whereas digital prints struggle to hit much more than 300dpi (6lp/mm) so they always look blurry to me now, even if the file they were made from was wonderful and properly sharpened for printing.
 

Poisson Du Jour

Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2008
Messages
5,462
Location
.
Format
Digital
Interesting thoughts. I personally don't think there is any real benefit of 4x5 over e.g. 6x7 or 645 — the gain in resolution is very, very modest and does not for many people warrant the investment in equipment, time, skill and weight. It is the craftsman approach that sparks the imagination that gets people moving to LF. I concur with Polyglot re getting a better image from a format below LF; much of the technology that has been applied to MF lenses not carried over, or picked up by the stagnated design of LF optics. I recall meeting Peter Dombrovskis (late of Tasmania) in 1993 when he often bemoaned the carrying of his big Linhof on expeditions, stating ruefully he could do just about all of the work (save for movements, of course) with his battered Hasselblad 500C/M and two lenses (yes, he used a Hassy, and also 35mm on occasion). Digi is great for eBay and reference shots of locations that may hold promise for a return trip with analogue. I think in that way it has revolutionised the way many analogue photographers work, and there are a great many here using both digital and analogue.
 

wiltw

Subscriber
Joined
Oct 4, 2008
Messages
6,439
Location
SF Bay area
Format
Multi Format
spijker said:
I think that you're missing the point. The comparison is NOT 645 film versus 135 film but 645 film versus a flagship DSLR.
Click to expand...

Thanks for pointing out what I overlooked. The 'not enough of an improvement' nevertheless was used decades ago, before digital photography came about.
 

spijker

Member
Joined
Mar 20, 2007
Messages
625
Location
Ottawa, Canada
Format
Medium Format
No problem wiltw. This film size advantage debate still pops up every so often. In that respect I do agree with what you wrote. And as Polyglot pointed out, there's more to the image quality than just the size of the negative.
 

pentaxuser

Member
Joined
May 9, 2005
Messages
19,935
Location
Daventry, No
Format
35mm
I wonder what the OP decided to do? As of his second and last post it seems he may have neither bought the MF film camera nor the scanner.

It doesn't seem as if darkroom printing is "on his radar" either so I suspect he may have done neither and has now gone elsewhere.

It would be nice to know but the ship may have now passed in the night,is now over the horizon and out of sight

pentaxuser
 

Poisson Du Jour

Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2008
Messages
5,462
Location
.
Format
Digital


I am a little thrown off by his overtures to digital comparisons in the last line re a Nikon D3S and a printer. It sounds to me there could well be quite a large chasm of knowledge and experience to be covered. I am sure others here would validate that a crisp, well exposed analogue image will always win over a digital image.
 

polyglot

Member
Joined
Jun 12, 2009
Messages
3,467
Location
South Australia
Format
Medium Format

Ah yes, chasms of knowledge. Don't we all.
 

wiltw

Subscriber
Joined
Oct 4, 2008
Messages
6,439
Location
SF Bay area
Format
Multi Format
spijker said:
And as Polyglot pointed out, there's more to the image quality than just the size of the negative.
Click to expand...

Well, just look at the 'not much better resolution' as one example of the oversimplification of 'better IQ' discussion in this very thread. What we used to talk about decades ago was the increased tonality and color gradation that could be captured with more film area per subject area, and NOT about more detail resolution!
 

pdeeh

Member
Joined
Jun 8, 2012
Messages
4,765
Location
UK
Format
Multi Format
The reduction of the aesthetics of a photograph to "IQ" is what has driven me from the digital forums, where all that seems to matter about an image is how "sharp" it is at "100%"; this thread appears to demonstrate an (alarming?) drift towards the same thing only with film as the subject matter rather than sensor output.

I really don't give a damn for "sharpness", grain, 100% crops or even whether it's created on film or electronically; the question for me is "what does this photograph do?" not "what's the resolution of this image?"

Or perhaps I just have a chasm in my understanding?
 

mweintraub

Subscriber
Joined
Dec 22, 2008
Messages
1,730
Location
Dallas, TX
Format
Medium Format

I think those who buy Hasselblads and smash Mamiyas do.

Hey, I like sharp photos as much as the next guy, but I don't lose sleep over it.
 

Sirius Glass

Subscriber
Joined
Jan 18, 2007
Messages
50,356
Location
Southern California
Format
Multi Format
No one should not
I think those who buy Hasselblads and smash Mamiyas ...
Click to expand...

Rather one should
I think those who buy Hasselblads and should sell Mamiyas to buy more lenses for said Hasselblads.
Click to expand...
That is what I did.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

wiltw

Subscriber
Joined
Oct 4, 2008
Messages
6,439
Location
SF Bay area
Format
Multi Format

A chasm of appreciation, by others! Gone is the appreciation of the fact that 4-6 decades ago the photographic greats and the iconic images that they produced were done with using only the 5-6 lenses offered by the manufacturers for that SLR or RF body or 4x5 camera, using 'fast enough' film to capture the image.

Instead, with the endless search of more pixels, sharper images at 100%, and more detail resolution, this spills over from the 'which digital camera sensor' obsessive search into the 'which XXmm lens is best' obsessive search discussion, too.
It is oddly ironic that a generation that is so readily satisfied by the lower audio fidelity of MP3 played thru 3" dock speakers is also so obsessive of the optical quality of their photographic gear! Even more ironic in view of the fact that the modern digital 4K cinema screen shows such easily seen pixels -- and the best home digital projector is only half of that resolution! -- that cannot even begin equal what the digital SLR can capture!
 
Last edited by a moderator:

mweintraub

Subscriber
Joined
Dec 22, 2008
Messages
1,730
Location
Dallas, TX
Format
Medium Format
Sirius Glass said:
No one should not

Rather one should

That is what I did.
Click to expand...

Yes, I believe the Zeiss glass is nice. But for the price I have a full range kit Bronica SQ-A that would normally equal a single body and one (maybe two) lenses for the Hasselbald.

I'd love to get my hands on a 500 series to do a side by side compare.
 
OP
OP

IanBarber

Member
Joined
Dec 3, 2013
Messages
126
Location
Doncaster Yorkshire UK
Format
4x5 Format
I would like to thank everyone for taking the time to reply to my post. I have read each and everyone with great interest.

It appears from what everyone has said that my expectations of the 645 over my Nikon D3s may be a little on the high side. having said that, I appreciate that tim and Digital are different mediums and are going to give different results. For the moment, I have decided to borrow the Bronica for a short period of time, shoot some rolls and maybe develop my self and then get them scanned externally.
 

Chris Lange

Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2009
Messages
770
Location
NY
Format
Multi Format
good scans (imacon/drum/nikon 8/9000/minolta scan multi) from a 645 negative will exceed a 16-24mp DSLR with relative ease in terms of detail and tonality, especially in black and white, at least at the lower end of the ISO scale.
 

Thomas Bertilsson

Member
Joined
Jan 21, 2003
Messages
15,708
Location
Switzerland
Format
Multi Format
Chris Lange said:
good scans (imacon/drum/nikon 8/9000/minolta scan multi) from a 645 negative will exceed a 16-24mp DSLR with relative ease in terms of detail and tonality, especially in black and white, at least at the lower end of the ISO scale.
Click to expand...

And, you'd be surprised what the V750 can do with the wet mount kit. It is not as good as the Flextight/Imacon or drum scanners, but closer than you might think to the Nikon and Minolta (not quite there, though, but still very good scans).
 
OP
OP

IanBarber

Member
Joined
Dec 3, 2013
Messages
126
Location
Doncaster Yorkshire UK
Format
4x5 Format
Thomas Bertilsson said:
And, you'd be surprised what the V750 can do with the wet mount kit. It is not as good as the Flextight/Imacon or drum scanners, but closer than you might think to the Nikon and Minolta (not quite there, though, but still very good scans).
Click to expand...

It surprises me why Nikon dropped the 9000, everyone I speak to sings its praises
 

Sirius Glass

Subscriber
Joined
Jan 18, 2007
Messages
50,356
Location
Southern California
Format
Multi Format
IanBarber said:
It surprises me why Nikon dropped the 9000, everyone I speak to sings its praises
Click to expand...

Welcome to APUG Ian.

I don't think that the sales supported continuing the product. I passed on it because I also shoot 120 film and 4"x5" film.
 

pentaxuser

Member
Joined
May 9, 2005
Messages
19,935
Location
Daventry, No
Format
35mm

I take what I said in my post all back and apologise. You are still "in there" asking questions. Borrowing the Bronica sounds like a great idea. I have never used a digital camera but I suspect you are right and that unless your prints are going to be very large then you may not get the kind of "Wow" effect from a MF film camera that you were expecting when you posted.

If at all possible I'd try a B&W film and get prints from a source that can print on traditional silver gelatin paper.

Let us know your findings

pentaxuser
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…