Is medium format your main format?

[etn]

I have a 28/50/105 set up for my Nikon if I want 35mm, but I got spoiled by MF slides...

Projected MF slides are indeed great!
I too shoot MF as main format, for 2 reasons: 1) love my Hasselblad, 2) hundreds of rolls in my fridge which are past date.
In the recent times I find myself shooting more 35mm, for a very mundane reason: I'm taking our newborn son with me pretty much every time I go out. Both he and I absolutely love the baby carrier, but I just haven't found a practical way to use the Hassy's waist level finder (or prism viewfinder, for that matter) with a baby on my chest Any suggestions welcome

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

A waist level seems more convenient to shoot children and dogs of the floor. You can get down intimate with them without having to lay down prone as with a 35mm SLR.

 

[pentaxuser]

GarageBoy, has this discussion on what cameras we use helped you come to a decision? Can you tell us how this has helped? I am always fascinated to see how this kind of a general discussion about a list of others' cameras actually helps.

Looking at what you wrote, it seemed to me that while you feel you largely waste 36 frame films the most important desire is your new love of MF slides Well all MF cameras will take MF slides but this hardly narrows things down much for your final choice.

Compared to 35mm most MFs do not have the speeds or super long lenses that are other than suitable for tripod mount. It may be that just listening in to our conversation helps you to decide and that's great but I remain curious as to how this works for you

Thanks

pentaxuser

 

[Sirius Glass]

I mostly shoot 6x6, 645 never made any sense to me.

 

[Paul Howell]

I shoot 6X6 and like Sirius Glass never gave much thought about 6X4.5, like to crop in the enlarger. But it actually makes sense, if you print rectangular rather than square you waste film. And the bodies are somewhat smaller, lens can very good, still dont think I will be adding another system.

 

[Pieter12]

If the OP is concerned that he cannot shoot 36 frames, then he should just shoot 12 with the equipment he has. After all, a 12 (6x6) exposure roll of 120 film costs the same as a 36-exposure roll of 35mm. So burn the remaining frames and process the roll. You've spent the same amount of money per frame and you don't have to buy any more equipment.

 

[abruzzi]

36 exposures is only useful for vacations, for everything else I do, it is a significant hinderance. I went out with my F2SB today and shot 10 more frames on a roll that has been in the camera for several months.

I shoot a little of everything, but probably medium format more than anything else—maybe 60%, 30% to 35mm, and the remaining 10% large format. I’m new to large format, so I’m not terribly productive with it. Medium format can shoot more spontaneously, which suits me. I have one square camera (Yashicamat) but I don’t really like TLRs, or the square format. So most of my shooting is 6x4.5 (Bronica ETRSi, Fuji GA654Zi) or 6x7 (Bronica GS-1, Pentax 67.) I also shoot 6x9 in sheet film format (2.25x3.25 and 6.5x9 in my Linhof Technika 23 III) but that is much more clunky, like shooting LF.

 

[awty]

A waist level seems more convenient to shoot children and dogs of the floor. You can get down intimate with them without having to lay down prone as with a 35mm SLR.

Laying down is easy, getting up again is the hard part. Plenty of 35mm slrs can do waste level finders as well.

 

[36cm2]

If so, what do you shoot and what's your camera of choice?
I mainly shoot 35mm film with 28-135mm lenses, so I'm not looking for super long or super wides - I don't need the speeds, and for low light stuff, I have a non film solution. Takes me months to go through 36 exp. Should I just switch to a 645 slr or a rangefinder or a tlr?

I have a 28/50/105 set up for my Nikon if I want 35mm, but I got spoiled by MF slides...

36cm2, my username, came from 6x6, which was the format I predominantly shot when I first found this forum. Before and since then, I’ve enjoyed from 35mm to 11x14. Medium format for me feels like the sensible format. Big enough to get you there comfortably, without tremendous trouble. Like a trusty Toyota. 35mm to me is more like the Vespa scooter you shoot around town with. Light and agile, but I’m not tackling the highway with it. 4x5: the luxury sedan - serious, more measured, stately, luxurious. 8x10 and larger, for me, excess that probably hurts in many ways, but when it’s good, it’s really really good. Whatever you decide, just remember it doesn’t matter unless you do it well and/or are at least enjoying yourself. Small, medium, large or ULF, size never replaces quality and hopefully isn't permitted time suck the joy out of it.
You asked what people were shooting. If it helps you (but really only you know what you need or want), here are some If the more memorable light boxes that have helped me along the way, along with a completely subjective 1-5 rating (5 best) of My personal feelings toward them. My feelings don’t mean they take better photos (the photographer does that), my feelings just indicate the level of love I‘ve had for these objects. I only have some of these still in hand. The first four, I’ll die with (interesting that 3 of them are MF). Some of the others may stick around till then too.

Rolleiflex 2.8f - 5
Makina 67 - 5
Arca Swiss F - 5
Voigtlander Perkeo II - 4.5
Wehman 8x10 - 4.75
Hasselblad 501 - 4.75
Nikon f100 - 4.5
Chamonix 4x5 - 4.25
Tachihara 4x5 - 4
Nikon N75 - 4
Deardorff 8x10 - 4
Nikon D800 - 4
Graflex 8x10 studio - 4.5
Danish 15x15 studio - 4.75
Empire 11x14 - 4.25

Best of luck,
Leo

 

[etn]

Laying down is easy, getting up again is the hard part. Plenty of 35mm slrs can do waste level finders as well.

I, for one, used this feature a lot in my teens with the Icarex 35 my Dad let me use, but now >30 years later (in the age of reading glasses...) it is too small to be of any practical use to me (hopefully it is not the case for you guys!) Even the waist level finder of a 6x6 is getting critical and I use the PME 45 pretty much all the time despite the added weight and bulk. (The meter is a cherry on the cake too)

 

[GarageBoy]

GarageBoy, has this discussion on what cameras we use helped you come to a decision? Can you tell us how this has helped? I am always fascinated to see how this kind of a general discussion about a list of others' cameras actually helps.

Looking at what you wrote, it seemed to me that while you feel you largely waste 36 frame films the most important desire is your new love of MF slides Well all MF cameras will take MF slides but this hardly narrows things down much for your final choice.

Compared to 35mm most MFs do not have the speeds or super long lenses that are other than suitable for tripod mount. It may be that just listening in to our conversation helps you to decide and that's great but I remain curious as to how this works for you

Thanks

pentaxuser

I'm thinking of carrying a light medium format camera around for a bit (maybe a ga645, tlr, or Fuji 6x0 rf?) and seeing how I like it, I'll definitely keep a 35mm system around for social events etc
I mainly shoot cityscapes nowadays - mainly handheld in daylight

I could roll my own short rolls for black and white (but if I'm going to load and spend time developing 12 frames, I might as well load 36 onto the reel), but I do not do my own color film processing, and at the moment do not have any desire to process my own color, so a lab will charge me the same if it's 12 frames or 36 - which led to me thinking, might as well go for the larger negative

 

[KenS]

Projected MF slides are indeed great!
I too shoot MF as main format, for 2 reasons: 1) love my Hasselblad, 2) hundreds of rolls in my fridge which are past date.
In the recent times I find myself shooting more 35mm, for a very mundane reason: I'm taking our newborn son with me pretty much every time I go out. Both he and I absolutely love the baby carrier, but I just haven't found a practical way to use the Hassy's waist level finder (or prism viewfinder, for that matter) with a baby on my chest Any suggestions welcome

Since I was 'downsized' by my past employer (thanks 'partially' by the supposed 'ease of digital capture) the vast majority of film I now 'expose' (I HATE and never ever the use of the word 'shooting' for the Physical action of 'making an exposure' to film. I somewhat appreciate why 'shooting film has become 'somewhat' acceptable.. BUT..when I was 'learning' about photography those many years ago 'shooting' film with 35mm film was nowhere near as 'popular' as it is as of to-day...
That being said.. I still believe that wording for images/scenes being 'recorded' to film might be a more acceptable use of the English 'Language' than "shooting".

Yes... I still have my somewhat 'old' Pentax Spotmatic but it has not been used for some 20-odd years... but when I get 'out there' with my 4x5" Linhof...or 8x10" B&J, I'd rather take the time to properly 'frame' what I want to record to film.. making the 'one' (and sometimes a second exposure..."just in case")

Ken

Ken

 

[warden]

If so, what do you shoot and what's your camera of choice?
I mainly shoot 35mm film with 28-135mm lenses, so I'm not looking for super long or super wides - I don't need the speeds, and for low light stuff, I have a non film solution. Takes me months to go through 36 exp. Should I just switch to a 645 slr or a rangefinder or a tlr?
.

MF is kind of the goldilocks format for me, with cameras and negatives that are neither too big nor too small. If I'm out for a walk and looking for pictures I can reliably find ten or so images if I walk for two hours, and if I'm using a 6x7 camera that's one roll. It works for me and is cheap entertainment.

I like 35mm too but mostly use it for note taking these days. For that I use a Zeiss Ikon with a collection of lenses.

For medium format I mostly use a Hasselblad for its shape-shifting ability to meet almost any photographic need with the right accessories. I've come to fully appreciate that system, if not love it. For pure enjoyment I like rangefinders and for those days I use Plaubel Makina 6x7s, normal and wide. I love those cameras. Ten shots and you're done.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

I often leave my RB67 loaded with exposed and unexposed shots for weeks if not months. Now that I got a 4x5, that could get worse.

What adds to the time is the fact I can have one RB67 film back loaded with Velvia 50 color and another loaded with Tmax 100 BW film.

 

[narsuitus]

I'm thinking of carrying a light medium format camera around for a bit (maybe a ga645, tlr, or Fuji 6x0 rf?) and seeing how I like it, I'll definitely keep a 35mm system around for social events etc
I mainly shoot cityscapes nowadays - mainly handheld in daylight

When I want to carry a light medium format camera (or cameras) mainly for handheld shooting of cityscapes in daylight, I carry one of the following:

A. Fuji GSW690 with 65mm lens (wide-angle) (6x9cm)

B. Fuji GSW690 with 65mm lens (wide-angle) (6x9cm)
Fuji GW670 with 90mm lens (normal) (6x7cm)

C. Fuji GSW690 with 65mm lens (wide-angle) (6x9cm)
Ansco Viking 120 folder with 105mm f/6.3 (normal) (6x9cm)

D. Fuji GSW690 with 65mm lens (wide-angle) (6x9cm)
Holga 120 Panoramic Camera with 90mm f/8 lens (normal) (6x9cm)


Fuji Medium Format Rangefinders by Narsuitus, on Flickr

 

[etn]

I HATE and never ever the use of the word 'shooting' for 'making an exposure' to film

Ken,
I hardly gave any thought about the word "shooting" - English being my 2nd language I was simply assuming that's the word to say this and therefore I am using it.
But it is indeed questionable to use a word whose second meaning is using a firearm against men/animals.
In the street I live there is a photographer who proudly displays "WIR SHOOTEN ALLES" ("we shoot everything") in 50-cm large font on his shop window.
Everytime I walk by I want to ask them if they would shoot my wife/boss/president/etc. (delete as appropriate), laugh a bit for myself, and walk on.

(Disclaimer for political correctness: the above statement is only meant as a joke, I have nothing against my wife, boss, any local politician or any other person)

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Since I was 'downsized' by my past employer (thanks 'partially' by the supposed 'ease of digital capture) the vast majority of film I now 'expose' (I HATE and never ever the use of the word 'shooting' for the Physical action of 'making an exposure' to film. I somewhat appreciate why 'shooting film has become 'somewhat' acceptable.. BUT..when I was 'learning' about photography those many years ago 'shooting' film with 35mm film was nowhere near as 'popular' as it is as of to-day...
That being said.. I still believe that wording for images/scenes being 'recorded' to film might be a more acceptable use of the English 'Language' than "shooting".

Yes... I still have my somewhat 'old' Pentax Spotmatic but it has not been used for some 20-odd years... but when I get 'out there' with my 4x5" Linhof...or 8x10" B&J, I'd rather take the time to properly 'frame' what I want to record to film.. making the 'one' (and sometimes a second exposure..."just in case")

Ken

Ken

I've used take a picture or shoot a picture for 60 years. Don't photographers also say they're going to a "shoot"? Shooting is like firing a gun. After all, you look through a finder for both and then pull something to capture something.

 

[MattKing]

I have no problem with "photo shoot", but I find myself becoming more and more uncomfortable with "shoot" by itself.

 

[Alan Gales]

I mostly shoot 6x6, 645 never made any sense to me.

I used to own a Pentax 645Nll. It had a built in motor, autofocus, program mode, and matrix metering. Not much larger than a 35mm camera, it was great for event photography.

The cameras and lenses were less expensive new than 6x6. They were popular with the people who had a full time job and shot the occasional wedding on weekends. If you plan on cropping all your shots to a rectangle then they make sense.

 

[Alan Gales]

Except for my Stereo Realist, digital has replaced 35mm for me.

I also own a Wehman 8x10 and a Mamiya C220f TLR.

If you want to get your feet wet, Mamiya C220's and C330's and their lenses are cheap. So are Minolta Autocords and Yashica TLR's if you are ok with one lens.

 

[grat]

I have no problem with "photo shoot", but I find myself becoming more and more uncomfortable with "shoot" by itself.

The word "shoot", which according to the OED, dates at least as far back as 893, has so many definitions as both a noun and a verb, that I'm reluctant to allow one usage to overwhelm all the others. I suppose it's indicative of our society's current obsession with absolutes-- there can be no moderation, no nuance-- if a word offends one out of 8 billion people, it must be avoided at all costs by the rest of humanity, lest it be considered a "microaggression".

It is unfortunate that "shoot" has become synonymous with "kill" (especially since they're not synonyms). If it's any consolation, it's also the word for new botanical growth.

Maybe we shouldn't be so obsessed with dumbing down our language to the lowest common denominator, and pretending an education is something to be embarrassed about.

 

[Prest_400]

2014 I purchased a GW690 which is my one and sole MF camera. Modern, great value bang for the buck and at 1.5kg is rather lightweight for the format. It's slightly bulky but at the sight of this thread I'm thinking to just bring it in my pack and do a photo walk after work. Had loaded Portra 400, after a year or so of focusing on B&W. At the beginning of the last decade (!) I drooled over the results of medium format. Tonality, smoothness and rendering. As a teenager to which a roll of film was a bit of a luxury, I took months to finish up 36 exposures in my OM1, so thought that if I was so well rationed shooting, might as well do that in a big format.

6x9 contains a good variety of other formats by cropping, although sometimes I do wish I had 12 exp per roll instead of 8. 220 would give 16 shots which would be wonderful (I keep a sole pack of 160NS 220!) for travel.

I intended to be mainly a Medium format shooter. 35mm however is like the Hotel California of film formats "you can check out any time you like, but you can't ever leave", ending up adopting cameras or just keeping one of them handy as EDC. The smaller cameras are more spontaneous and good enough for poetic small prints. A 35mm with decent technique and loaded with TMX or Delta 100 can punch like small medium format in some characteristics.

 

[Pieter12]

I have no problem with "photo shoot", but I find myself becoming more and more uncomfortable with "shoot" by itself.

Riflestock camera mounts have been around for decades, certainly bringing shooting with a camera even closer to shooting with a weapon. Note that I am not a gun or even hunting advocate, just interested in language.

 

[pentaxuser]

I'm thinking of carrying a light medium format camera around for a bit (maybe a ga645, tlr, or Fuji 6x0 rf?) and seeing how I like it,
I could roll my own short rolls for black and white (but if I'm going to load and spend time developing 12 frames, I might as well load 36 onto the reel), but I do not do my own color film processing, and at the moment do not have any desire to process my own color, so a lab will charge me the same if it's 12 frames or 36 - which led to me thinking, might as well go for the larger negative

Thanks for the reply. As long as you are happy with us giving you lists of our cameras and not much more then that's fine but it just strikes me that it might be more productive for you if you were to say what a lightweight MF camera is by your standards. A folder or a fixed lens Fuji rangefinder is in a lightweight class that other 645s like the Pentax cannot match. I have a P 654N and its great but compared to most 35 mm SLRs it is heavy and bulky. It is not a carry-around-your-neck-all-day camera while walking miles - at least not by in my book

You are right about a lab charging to same for processing be that a 12 frame/36 frame 35mm film and it may be that the charge for processing 120 is no more but you do come out with the bigger negs but of course you have to factor the price of the MF camera into the equation

pentaxuser

 

[MattKing]

Riflestock camera mounts have been around for decades, certainly bringing shooting with a camera even closer to shooting with a weapon. Note that I am not a gun or even hunting advocate, just interested in language.

I too am interested in language, and find the evolution in my reaction to the term "shoot" interesting.
I'm guessing that I'm most uncomfortable when someone uses a phrase like "shoot someone" in reference to photographing that someone.
Modern day horrors (quite rightly) affect how we react to things, including how we react to words and phrases.
I'm quite confident that if you were to walk out in the street with a riflestock camera mount now it would be perceived differently than if you had done so in 1975.
Language is a powerful thing, and how and where it is used is worth paying attention to. That is far different than a pre-occupation with some sort of political correctness.

 

[moto-uno]

I was thinking of suggesting that he get a child carrier that has the kid on his back . They usually love that location also . Peter