When is medium format digital gonna be cheap?
Full frame is for scrubs.
>>2709114
when sony announce the new compact mf mirrorless for $5000.
or when sony figures out how to stitch a bunch of 1/2.3" sensor to make mf.
>>2709116
645d is 3k$
i want mf mirrorless to be a reality. but i want literal 6x6 sensor, not a cropped "medium format" sensor thats more close to full frame than mf.
>>2709122
>1:1
haha.
>>2709122
Very few digital medium format cameras even get to 645 let alone 6x6.
Digital MF like the pentax or similar sensor size will probably be the price of high end 35mm digital cameras today but true digital MF of at least 645 or 6x6 will not be cheap any time soon. That is if they even make it in those sizes. To me the difference in sensor size between 35mm and a 645Z is not enough to justify the negatives.
Go 35mm digital or go >645 digital, even if the price is ridiculous. Anything else doesn't make much sense.
>>2709114
Meme formats for the average consumer will always be expensive. Inb4 muh phase1.
>>2709114
I own this exact camera. its pretty great.
>>2709114
>>2709168
I to am a 690 owner
>Fuji mirror-less 6x9 when
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make FUJIFILM Camera Model X-T1 Camera Software RawTherapee Maximum Lens Aperture f/2.8 Sensing Method One-Chip Color Area Focal Length (35mm Equiv) 41 mm Maker Note Version 0130 Image-Specific Properties: Image Width 600 Image Height 400 Compression Scheme Uncompressed Pixel Composition RGB Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 300 dpi Vertical Resolution 300 dpi Image Data Arrangement Chunky Format Image Created 2015:10:26 06:59:25 Exposure Time 1/500 sec F-Number f/2.8 Exposure Program Manual ISO Speed Rating 200 Lens Aperture f/2.8 Brightness 4.3 EV Exposure Bias 0 EV Metering Mode Spot Light Source Daylight Flash No Flash, Compulsory Focal Length 27.00 mm Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Manual White Balance Manual Scene Capture Type Standard Sharpness Hard Subject Distance Range Unknown Sharpness Hard White Balance Daylight Chroma Saturation High Flash Mode Off Focus Mode Auto Slow Synchro Mode Off Picture Mode Manual Exposure Continuous/Bracketing Mode Off Blur Status OK Focus Status OK Auto Exposure Status OK
>>2709191
how is that thing
better/worse than pentux 67
Looks a hell lot easier to use
>>2709114
Define "cheap", most people have a hard time justifying a $3000 camera, which in medium format land is enough to get you a 645D if you're lucky on eBay.
>>2709117
Had the 645D a year ago, and that shit was slow, you'd think it was an early DSLR as it took several seconds to do anything between shots.
I guess it's fine if you're doing landscape or whatever else you can take your sweet time with. 645D + A 35mm 3.5 is a pretty sweet entry deal for that.
>>2709122
Sony had to pull out all the stops to make a CMOS sensor in 33x44mm, so it's not happening any time soon, this is still a new technology.
>>2709199
its like a leica but bigger
>90mm fix leaf shutter lens
>minimum 1 meter focus distance
>6x9 size largest non panoramic 120 negative
>max shutter speed 500 which is not bad for a leaf shutter
>max aperture of f3.5 also faster than Mamiya 7 II
>So cheep because it's hipster
>$600 - $800 usd is also a bargain picked up mine in mint condition for $490 aud
>no meter
>pic is my first roll no light meter, kodak tmax 400.
>>2709212
dude i got mine off of ebay for way less than $600. more like $400
>>2709214
Going by keh
https://www.keh.com/search/list?n=139&category[]=Fixed-Lens+Cameras&mfg[]=Fuji
As I said shit is way under valued for what it is.
Hipster with out the
>Hipster tax
>>2709146
they have made it to those sizes. hassleblad and mamiya.
they are NOT cheap. the price curve is unbelievable
I'm looking to get a camera as a Christmas present for a relative. I don't know a bloody thing about them, and nor does she; I just need something digital that'll take decent (to the entirely untrained eye) pictures with minimal effort for not much money.
My local Cash Converters is selling a Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ1 for £30. I assume this is a terrible idea?
>>2709357
>with minimal effort
>Huh, funny you should say that, I'm looking for a guitar that plays beautiful music and a kitchen knife that prepares fantastic food with minimal effort.
How much do you reckon I should spend so that I don't have to learn anything?
>>2709372
I said decent to the untrained eye, not beautiful. I'm just looking for something a complete amateur could use to take a few nice photos on a walk round the countryside.
My D800 has enough megapixels already.
I just want Nikon to make leaf shutter lenses.
>>2709379
I'll try wording this differently.
If you picked up a guitar for the first time in your life, a cheap basic model, what would be the best song you could play straight away? You now have 99 other guitars lined up that rapidly increase in quality and tone. By what number guitar will you be able to play a song that sounds remotely pleasing?
> I'm just looking for something a complete amateur could use to take a few nice photos on a walk round the countryside.
I'm just looking for a guitar that will lay down some tasty solid blues licks, nothing complicated. So, which guitar will make me play some tasty blues licks without practicing?
>>2709380
MF got nothing to do with megapixels noooob.
If there was a proper 6x9 sensor, I wouldn't want it over 30MP. It's all about rendering and colour accuracy.
>>2709389
A7r II has a color depth of 26 bits
Phase One IQ180 26.5 bits.
Both are plenty and the difference is hardly noticeable.
Faster flash sync speeds is the only real benefit of medium format.
>>2709212
>>2709212
Im seeing them for around $400 as well
Well so
-Cant do close up portraits, the 90mm is like a 40 eqiv
-8 fucking shots
-pretty cool wideness
I may pick this thing up for landscapes or interesting street-like photography but I dont see this being good for portraits. The 6x9 size is very pleasing to look at though
>>2709191
Repping
>>2709558
TEXAS LEICA
>>2709122
PhaseOne A Series. I wish it was a rangefinder though.
>>2709558
>>2709191
Nigga, please.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make NIKON CORPORATION Camera Model NIKON D3 Camera Software Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 3.4.1 Maximum Lens Aperture f/3.1 Sensing Method One-Chip Color Area Color Filter Array Pattern 760 Focal Length (35mm Equiv) 45 mm Image-Specific Properties: Horizontal Resolution 100 dpi Vertical Resolution 100 dpi Image Created 2011:09:27 11:17:02 Exposure Time 1/125 sec F-Number f/13.0 Exposure Program Manual ISO Speed Rating 640 Lens Aperture f/13.0 Exposure Bias 0 EV Subject Distance 0.67 m Metering Mode Pattern Light Source Unknown Flash No Flash Focal Length 45.00 mm Color Space Information Uncalibrated Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Manual White Balance Auto Scene Capture Type Standard Gain Control Low Gain Up Contrast Normal Saturation Normal Sharpness Normal Subject Distance Range Unknown
>>2709114
probably in 2010 when Pentax releases the 645d
>>2709687
What do until then?
>>2709352
Like I said I have seen few 645 backs. I have yet to find anything larger. I would love to see a 6x6 back if you can show me.
there was a mamiya 7 converted to a digital back on ebay a while ago. conversion looked slick, i dunno how new the sensor was.
>>2709574
Yes, im very happy.
its easy to use, controls are great, the shutter sound is nearly non-existent. Focusing is great.
IQ of the lens and the format is fantastic. Works great in my gorilla mitts.
only downside is fixed lens, i personally like the focal length but if you didn't, too bad, you're stuck with it.
also the II is better than the III in terms of looks and feel. The III feels like shit and looks like shit. optically and what not its fine, but its just not FA enough for me.
>>2709593
>wanted to buy gw690
>refused to buy it because people refer to it as the texas leica
I know that's the worst reason not to buy something but it just annoys me that much. My autism acts up when people refer to a camera as a "poor man's leica" or that a lens has the "zeiss 3D pop".
bumping with a couple Fuji GW690 shots.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 3.6 (Windows) Image-Specific Properties: Horizontal Resolution 240 dpi Vertical Resolution 240 dpi Image Created 2014:07:19 13:07:47
>>2709879
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 3.6 (Windows) Image-Specific Properties: Horizontal Resolution 240 dpi Vertical Resolution 240 dpi Image Created 2014:07:19 14:29:13
>>2709881
last one
Before anyone asks, i think it was Across 100 pushed to 400. but i could be wrong.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 3.6 (Windows) Image-Specific Properties: Horizontal Resolution 240 dpi Vertical Resolution 240 dpi Image Created 2014:06:16 02:32:56
>>2709859
That's not autism.
That's being a pillow fucking retard.
Sincerely, someone with autism.
>tfw MF master race
>>2709400
Well, there's a clear technology gap there, with Sony having the newest whizbangs. Newer is always better, and there's generally a point where a smaller sensor from a later generation will catch up with bigger sensors from the previous one, because, technology.
I also get the argument tho that modern FF digital is "good enough" for mostly everything and close enough to MF film in terms of output - doesn't mean a bigger MF digital wouldn't one-up it, though. The question is just, "how much?"
But otherwise... all else equal, a bigger sensor will have better colors/contrast because for any given equal size magnification it captures more light (photons/"information") than a smaller sized one. Just look at how different the images between 135 and 120 film look, where the "sensor" is identical.
>WTB Sigma Foveon sensor MF digital 6x9 camera
>>2710192
>being Zuccherose
>bragging about his gear
>thinking you aren't the scrub of /p/
Try to post a photo, atleast. Not one we already saw 10 times, ofc.
>tfw no fast wide angle or tele macro MF lenses
>>2709387
your being retarded
He's looking for a camera that takes decent pictures, i.e. in focus, well exposed, not too much noise. You don't have to be fucking HCB to do that. My grandma can do that with a decent camera that has autofocus, auto exposure and a decent sensor.
>>2709357
This belongs in the gear thread, not the medium format thread. That camera is probably pretty shit like most superzooms, but for 30 bongbucks it could be ok.
>>2710866
confirmed for never using MF.
pleb.
>>2710881
I'm not talking equivalent DoF, I mean actual ones, Say a lens equivalent to a 24mm f/1.4 or a 180-200mm equivalent 1:1 macro lens in 645 format. I'm actually thinking of getting myself an MF camera, the only gripe I have is that the widest you can go is equivalent to 21mm without resorting to fisheye or a Hartblei Hcam, and the longest macro lens is only about a 75mm equivalent, I want more variety, say, a 135mm f/2 MF lens, equivalent to an 85mm f/1.4 or 85mm f/1. Then again, this is coming from the same guy who wants to see an MF camera with a fixed pellicle mirror and titanium shutter to allow for high continuous shooting rates(5fps or higher)
>>2710917
>24mm f/1.4
why would you want such a retarded lens for MF?
confirmed for never using MF.
>>2710920
I don't mean an actual 24mm 1.4, I mean an equivalent, if that were real it would become act like a 15mm f/0.9, something that should only be able to be achieved through the Brenizer method, so the equivalent of a 24mm f/1.4 would be about a 40mm f/2.4, and the equivalent to a 180mm f/2.8 macro would be about a 290mm f/4.5
>>2710923
>Brenizer method
wew lad
>>2710917
Pentax 25mm F4 is equivalent to 15mm on 35mm. The fastest medium format lens I know is the Mamiya 80mm f1.9 so if you expect an f1.4 wide angle you might as well ask for your my little ponies to come to life.
I don't know shit about macro but I think a 1:1 macro lens has the same magnification regardless of focal length. So why would you need anything longer than 120mm or 140mm in MF which there are plenty of? If DOF in macro is anything like it is in regular photography you would have a hell of a time getting anything in focus with a 300mm lens on MF with a 1:1 magnification ratio.
There aren't even any 85mm f1 lenses for 35mm that I know of so you want lenses faster than exist on 35mm for a larger format. If you want shallow DOF you can get plenty on MF. If you want speed you are out of luck.
You should stay away from MF until you are able to live in reality or stop being a retard.
>>2710942
retard.
>>2710923
>an actual 24mm 1.4, I mean an equivalent, if that were real it would become act like a 15mm f/0.9, something that should only be able to be achieved through the Brenizer method
Wtf are you talking about? What are all those equivalences?
6x7, 6x6, 645 are not the same aspect ratio as 35mm.
With respects to what are the equivalences?
Horizontal angle of view? Diagonal? Vertical?
Also, would you need this "Brenizer" thing to get a 15mm f/0.9?
What part of the equation necessitates "Brenizer"? The 15mm part? The f/0.9 part? Do you think you can't get lower than f/1.0 optically and you need post processing tricks to emulate the effect?
