Interchangeable backs on medium format SLRs - when/what/why do you use them?

[hospadar]

For those of you using medium format SLRs - when do you actually use multiple film backs? Do you find them useful and great or just kinda meh? Would you be perfectly happy without them? What creative situations would you be unable to take advantage of without the interchangeable back?

I have some upcoming projects that I'm considering acquiring my first medium format SLR for and just wondering since I've never owned/used one before. I'm not going to be shooting weddings, or doing anything professional/for money. It seems like outside of the VERY rare circumstance I'm blasting off multiple rolls of 120 in a sitting I'd basically never use more than one back?

 

[Paul Howell]

In the days when I still shot color as well as black and white I often used 2 backs with my Kowa Super 66. Lately. now that I only shoot black and white use one back, or my Kowa SL66 without the interchangeable backs. I could see a need if I were to shoot both high speed film like Tmax 400 along with a slower speed film such as Tmax 100. Other than that I tend to save weight and room in my bag.

 

[AnselMortensen]

Yes.
I shoot 6x6 & 645....and use both 120 and 220 film with my Hasselblad.

 

[ic-racer]

One practical advantage...as entropy whittles away at our gear...when the film back fails, just replace it with a working one

 

[loccdor]

I avoided interchangeable back medium format SLRs for the reason that they have more failure points for light seals. That is one reason against using them especially on degraded vintage cameras. Although usually not hard to fix.

I do have a 6x9 removable back for my Horseman 970 technical camera which doesn't leak light. And I use a Mamiya Press 6x9 back for a homemade camera, meant to be permanently fixed in that case.

Usually when I'm out with a medium format I have a 35mm in a pocket/belt case. This allows color and B&W shooting at the same time and also gives the choice of different lenses, different aspect ratios, etc. I find that more flexible and ready-at-hand than changing backs. The 35mm is often fixed with a wide or telephoto lens which would be outside the medium format camera's normal range or prohibitively heavy to carry.

 

[Sanug]

I have a Bronica SQ and bought it in a set with 2 backs for 120 film / 6x6. When I was outdoor with the camera, I left the second back in the hotel. 12 exposures on a roll does not make me need to change to a different material. And changing a film roll after the 12 exposures is easily done without changing the back.

However, it is good to own 2 backs. Just in case if I encounter a situation where I may have to change from b/w to color. Or if I have to shoot more than 12 images and have not much time or a dirty environment for the film change.

Before I had the Bronica I owned a Kiev 60. I never had the need for changing film backs.

 

[Rick A]

I used to shoot wedding, always carried preloaded spare backs to keep shooting without missing action.

 

[Sanug]

I an imagine, for wedding shooters some preloaded film backs are mandatory.

 

[abruzzi]

I have a couple MF cameras that don't have interchangable backs, and that is the main reason I don't use them nearly as frequently as my other MF cameras. I always bring a MF camera when I travel (my most recent trip--Vienna, Prague & Budapest--I shot about 25 rolls of 120.) When I'm travelling lighting is much less predictable. So in Barcelona on a bright sunny day, photographing the outside of Sagrada Familia, I was happy with 100 speed TMAX and E100. Then when I went inside, it was dark enough that I shot Delta 3200 and Portra 800 (shot at 1600). Having to get to the end of a roll before switching is a non starter.

When I shot more 35mm, it was easier because if I'm using a camera with a 1/4000 max shutter, I could shoot fast film and still expose it properly in bright light, but most of my MF cameras are limited to 1/500, and even then 1/500 is rarely acheived (closer to 1/400 or 1/350). I even used to exchange 35mm rols mid roll. It was a bit slower, but the Pentax MZ-S can do that pretty easily. I just needed a sharpie to write the last frame shot on the tongue of the roll every time I removed it.

 

[xkaes]

I started out carrying multiple 35mm SLRs. Then I used ONE RB67 for years backpacking to save weight. Sometimes I'd want high speed or low speed film, and b&W or color, so I carried four backs. Then I figured out I could get a 4x5" field camera with the same weight. Swapping film it critical to a lot of us.

 

[Alexander6x6]

They are for color negs, black and white, slides and digital as well. Using the same lens set.

 

[chuckroast]

For those of you using medium format SLRs - when do you actually use multiple film backs? Do you find them useful and great or just kinda meh? Would you be perfectly happy without them? What creative situations would you be unable to take advantage of without the interchangeable back?

I have some upcoming projects that I'm considering acquiring my first medium format SLR for and just wondering since I've never owned/used one before. I'm not going to be shooting weddings, or doing anything professional/for money. It seems like outside of the VERY rare circumstance I'm blasting off multiple rolls of 120 in a sitting I'd basically never use more than one back?

• When I am doing strict Zone System, it's handy to have N, N-, and N+ backs ... or so I thought. It turned out to be something I rarely needed to do.
  
  
• If I plan to shoot a lot, it's nice to have the backs preloaded to be able to continuing shooting without stopping to load. Mostly, the only time I needed this was when I was doing weddings - something I will never do again if I live my life properly
  
  
• It's handy when I want to switch film types.
  
  
• It's handy when I want to switch between 120 and 220 (of which I have too much frozen).
  
  
• In theory, it's handy when I want to move a partial roll to another body with a different lens already mounted. In practice, I never do this.
  

As a practical matter, 1-2 backs is more than enough for almost everyone.

 

[John Wiegerink]

• When I am doing strict Zone System, it's handy to have N, N-, and N+ backs ... or so I thought. It turned out to be something I rarely needed to do.
  
  
• If I plan to shoot a lot, it's nice to have the backs preloaded to be able to continuing shooting without stopping to load. Mostly, the only time I needed this was when I was doing weddings - something I will never do again if I live my life properly
  
  
• It's handy when I want to switch film types.
  
  
• It's handy when I want to switch between 120 and 220 (of which I have too much frozen).
  
  
• In theory, it's handy when I want to move a partial roll to another body with a different lens already mounted. In practice, I never do this.

As a practical matter, 1-2 backs is more than enough for almost everyone.

Exactly what chuckroast says. I learn this from a dentist I bought a Beseler 4X5 enlarger from years ago. He told me he carried three backs with his Hasselblad 500CM. One for N-nromal development and the other two were for N- and N+ development. If he found a scene worth it he would shoot three or more shots with each back then process accordingly. He said that some scenes he printed just looked better N- or N+ no matter what his meter told him.

 

[Pieter12]

Rather than changeable film backs, what I like is changeable film inserts. It makes loading/reloading the camera on the move much easier, I usually carry at least one spare, loaded insert with me all the time.

 

[MattKing]

Mostly I don't really need them now, but I still prefer loading a back off the camera than swapping backs with one that has a just finished roll to pulling a back off, unloading it, reloading it and putting it back on the camera.
Sometimes I'll have colour film in one and black and white film in another, and swap when appropriate.
In a very few cases, I've had three different types of film on the go, so three backs are handy indeed.
Most of my wedding work was with a Mamiya C330, so I simply got fast at unloading and reloading. But the multiple backs were great when I did eventually get to use them.

 

[Ben ~]

Depends entirely on what you yourself intend to produce and with what technology you're most comfortable / familar.
You can solve the problem of digital medium format with a Hasselblad X1d, an older MF digital with great lenses.
The lenses hold their price and are expensive.
'Workflow', if you can call it work may be quicker with digital, may not, depends on you.
I have used a Kowa 66 mostly, Fuji 690, a folder, and now the X1d. Of course the digital stuff depreciates quickly so finding a good used X1d is better than going for the latest versions with too many megapixels. Budget in Europe 3,000 euros for a good used X1d with standard lens...always cheaper in USA.
For purists I'd imagine the earlier modular Hasselblads with digital backs would be super, but still pricey....and not very modern.
Up to you really.

 

[ags2mikon]

I like having interchangeable film backs for the simple reason I can load different films and developing schemes to match the scene. I use Mamiya press with graflok and Horseman and Graflex XL and all share the same film magazines.

 

[Pieter12]

Depends entirely on what you yourself intend to produce and with what technology you're most comfortable / familar.
You can solve the problem of digital medium format with a Hasselblad X1d, an older MF digital with great lenses.
The lenses hold their price and are expensive.
'Workflow', if you can call it work may be quicker with digital, may not, depends on you.
I have used a Kowa 66 mostly, Fuji 690, a folder, and now the X1d. Of course the digital stuff depreciates quickly so finding a good used X1d is better than going for the latest versions with too many megapixels. Budget in Europe 3,000 euros for a good used X1d with standard lens...always cheaper in USA.
For purists I'd imagine the earlier modular Hasselblads with digital backs would be super, but still pricey....and not very modern.
Up to you really.

You can always add a modern digital Hasselblad back to any 500C, 501C or 503C body. The image area is smaller, so the lens coverage will be different. But no need to change backs for color, different ISO or loading film.

 

[itsdoable]

When I was shooting a lot of film, interchangeable backs were useful for 2 main scenarios:

- projects that require different films or film speeds

- studio sessions where someone can pre-load the next back so you don't have to stop and reload

I shoot a lot less film now, and the need for interchangeable backs are minimal. Even if you do a studio session on film, people are quite patient and expect a slower process with film.

 

[hospadar]

Love these reports, very helpful. I'm thinking it probably doesn't extremely matter to me but maybe nice. I think switching between b&w and color might be a thing that I would occasionally do. I think I'd probably mostly be using this rig for planned shoots with people where I know ahead of time what film I'm going to use and probably only going to use one film stock.

I'm suspecting that for any walkin-around medium format stuff I'll tend to prefer the folders for size or the rolleiflex for compact-shaped-not-huge package. I'm not usually one for toting around much more than a small bag of camera junk unless I have a really specific project in mind so on-the-go flexibility [of film types] is probably not of critical importance to me.

 

[Pieter12]

- studio sessions where someone can pre-load the next back so you don't have to stop and reload

I directed a photo shoot once where the photographer had two (maybe more) Nikon F4s with the same lens and an assistant always ready with a loaded one by his side. It was one of the very few shoots I had where the photographer used 35mm.

 

[hospadar]

Usually when I'm out with a medium format I have a 35mm in a pocket/belt case. This allows color and B&W shooting at the same time and also gives the choice of different lenses, different aspect ratios, etc. I find that more flexible and ready-at-hand than changing backs. The 35mm is often fixed with a wide or telephoto lens which would be outside the medium format camera's normal range or prohibitively heavy to carry.

I think I'd probably be more likely to go this route. In practice currently I basically am never toting multiple cameras for the purpose of mutliple film stocks (so probably I wouldn't suddenly start doing that with a bulky precious medium format SLR?). Sometimes I have a medium format and a 35 on a trip with me but usually am only carrying one around on any particular outing.

This discussion does have me thinking though that it might be fun/creative to be packing color and b&w options sometimes.

 

[chuckroast]

I directed a photo shoot once where the photographer had two (maybe more) Nikon F4s with the same lens and an assistant always ready with a loaded one by his side. It was one of the very few shoots I had where the photographer used 35mm.

A lot of wedding shooters worked that way too - multiple cameras loaded and ready to go. More recently, I've seen multiple photographers at the event to ensure that they capture it well.

When I think back of the solo weddings I shot - no assistant, no redundant equipment - I shudder. Well, I shudder at the thought of commercial work of any kind but that's another story ...

 

[Pieter12]

One of the things I dislike about MF is reloading in the field or on the street. I like to be able reload in the shade, preferably seated, and that is not always possible. So a spare insert or two already loaded makes reloading simpler and better for me. It also helps if you are shooting a portrait and don't want to break the mood by taking time to reload.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Buy one and use it for awhile; then buy another if you think it is necessary.