So, after much vacillating, fretting, and doubt, I finally bit the Medium format bullet. I saw the above Zenza Bronica SQ-A in the window of my favourite used camera store here in Osaka, and decided the time had come. The reasons for my hesitation are ignorance and expense.Ignorance because I've never used a MF camera before. This particular model, known colloquially as "the poor mans Hasselblad" (more on that in a second) , is fully manual, meaning you have to set all the settings yourself. All modern cameras do this for you automatically, if you like, and then you can take over some, or all, of the work yourself. Manually setting your camera takes time away from shooting, and can lead to you missing shots. The thing is, the kind of shots you might be missing aren't what MF is used for. 35mm photography is for action. If it moves, use 35mm. MF and Large Format photography are for portraiture and landscape, and under conditions where you've planned in advance what your going to do because you have a clear idea of what you want. Action can be shot with this camera, don't get me wrong, it's just that it's not really intended for action.
The problem with shooting manually is that you need a seperate light meter (expensive!) because this particular model, as shown, has no light meter. Light meters measure light, then give you the shutter speed and aperture settings that lead to a properly exposed photograph. To shoot without this information is pure stupidity. Fortunately I can get around this by using my digital camera to meter for me, test shoot in real time, and use the values given to manually set the MF camera. It lacks a certain elegance, but when the ends justify the means, who gives a shit about elegance? Shoestring budgets are for people who care about art!

Speaking of shoestring budgets, another reason for my hesitation was expense. Medium format is EXPENSIVE!!! I got 5 rolls of Kodak Ektar 100 film for about $20. At 12 shots per roll that comes out to about 33 cents per shot. But wait a minute, that's just shooting. This doesn't include the expense of processing and scanning, which can be an additional $15 to $20, per roll! So all of a sudden, my per shot charge leaps, like a hungry puma, to approximately... $1.25. A buck twent five every time I snap the shutter. It terrifies me. I've gotten many a roll of film back and started pulling out hair because my expectations (never based in reality) come nowhere near the reality of my skills. Now I am planning to magnify this situation at least 2 fold....
Fortunately for me, film gear has never been so cheap to acquire, and it's not going to last. At some point in the not so distant future, people will begin to snatch this shit up, and the prices might well rebound. Some shit will always be expensive though. I mentioned before that the Bronica is "the poor mans Hasselblad". Well, that's because my 20+ year old camera cost me a cool $200 (with 80mm lens and 120 film back), where as a used Hasselblad will still cost you a G easily. Why? Because of the name, the workmanship, and the insanely sharp optics.
Here's the thing:

that gorgeous medium frame produces a negative that is 6cm x 6cm or 2.36 inches x 2.36 inches. compared to the 35mm negative which is MUCH smaller. More is more in the world of photography (and many other realms as well), and all that extra celluloid translates into almost three dimensional images crammed full of tones, detail, and texture. Of course, all that added expense means that this is not a medium for experimentation. That's what digital is for, fire and forget. This medium is for making the best possible image, which means it should be used for images worth making.
What does that mean?
I don't know.


But I've been circling this camera, flipping switches, pushing buttons, researching, theorizing, and someday soon, I might actually load the thing up, head out, and shoot with it. The question remains though, what to shoot? People, places, and things.
I'm excited about it. I think it's a pretty important step in my development as an image maker. I'm no photographer. Those people wear vests and shit. I don't wear vests.Images forthcoming...
If you want to see what people can do with this camera, look here.
All images taken with a Nikon D40x, Tamaron 28-300mm 3.5-6.3 Macro.
For some reason, my RSS feed of your blog didn't update me on this one. Curses. I wast just lulled to celluloidal bliss with the slideshow of images that you linked to. And if I understand correctly, one of the real advantages to this unit is its large sensor size, which is why so many people have reached a terminal velocity in cramming megapixels into a standard sensor size that won't even be visible in most digital formats anyway. I've heard that anything over 10mp requires a definition that most computers cannot really display, but they probably translate to print quite well.
ReplyDeleteAnyway, congrats! I have the last prints that you sent me on my wall and I look forward to continuing this tradition. In the meantime, I'll just put a dollar and a quarter in a frame as a placeholder...
This is a film camera though. Once scanned it is a digital image.
ReplyDeleteYou're right about the maxing out of digital sensors, specifically with 80% of what Nikon and Canon have to offer. "Nikon's DX sensors measure 15.8 x 23.6 mm, while 35mm film and FX digital sensors measure 24 x 36mm. DX sensors are 1.5x smaller than 35mm film." Ken Rockwell.com
Canon sensors are even smaller, at 1.6x crop factor!!!
All those extra pixels seem to add a lot of noise to the image too because of the heat the sensor builds up. Digital is the shit, but what you see in magazines when it comes to any kind of portraiture or landscape shots was probably done in medium format. Sometimes even in large format, which is insane. They make digital backs for medium format cameras. A big fat pixel loaded slice of silicone for only a few thousand dollars...