Is medium format your main format?

[wiltw]

I haven’t time or patience to do a deep dive comprehension read of every post here, but if I get the gist correctly:
It is as though you keep insisting that there is some kind of unknown sucking light out of medium format cameras.

Nothing is 'sucking light out' of MF...simply put, a longer FL for same AOV on the larger format size causes less DOF, so you have to choose a smaller aperture by about 1.5EV or 1.66EV in order to get the SAME DOF with the MF camera. So in a very loose sense, you do 'need more light' because shrinking aperture by -1.66EV means that you need to slow down the shutter speed by +1.66EV to get same exposure, and if you do that with a moving object you do not get 'the same photo', as their motion is captured more blurred by the slower shutter speed.

 

[Bormental]

Except, as Donald indicates, an f/8 aperture in an 90mm medium format lens lets twice as much light through as an f/8 aperture in a 45mm lens for 135. The light is spread more when it reaches the film, so at the film plane you end up with the same exposure. In other words, f/8 fills both buckets just as fast.

Not quite. Once again you're leading with the instrument-specific language. These lenses will not paint the same picture (DOF difference). You need more water to fill the bigger bucket if you want to transmit the same exact image. You need equal DOF for that. Going back to tool-specific language, it means stopping down further and keeping the shutter open longer. Exposure != water. The picture itself matters too. If you think of an image as a block of information to be transmitted, and a photon as transmission medium, yes you'll need more of them to carry the same information to a larger receiving area (how do you think more resolution for larger format is transmitted? By **more** photons!). That's why we can't see as well when it gets darker, and this is why color negative film "loves light" and why B/W digital sensors have higher ISO than color ones, and how resolution, dynamic range and exposure are all inter-dependent. One can spend years diving into hardcore physics and chemistry to stitch this all together for both film and digital domains, but I am suggesting a more practical way: understand the underlying simple principles and focus on photography.

... we're getting more and more meta, but I hope someone's benefiting.

 

[Pieter12]

So how does this all work with constant f-stop zoom lenses?

 

[MattKing]

So how does this all work with constant f-stop zoom lenses?

Their physical aperture changes with focal lehgth.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

It was my main format yesterday. RB67, Acros, and Rollei IR. Too hot in Kamloops to lug around the 8x10

 

[Bormental]

Are you trying to say that MF lenses are slower? So that where you can shoot down to let's say f/1.8 with a 50mm lens with a 35mm camera, the equivalent lens in a medium format with let's say 90mm lens only goes to f/3.5? So you can shoot with a faster shutter in 35mm f/1.8 opposed to f/3.5 in MF..

Alan, if they're slower (in the conventional sense) it's only because of a designer's choice, most likely due to cost & weight. But they cannot deliver the same information (same image) at equal aperture/exposure/FOV as their smaller-format counterparts due to shallower DOF. So if you want your resulting photo to look identical to a smaller-format image, you have to stop down even further. In other words, it is a false equivalency between f/5.6 @1/125 second on 35mm and f/5.6 @1/125 second on medium format. You get the same negative density at expense of a different image.

 

[wyofilm]

What was the question?

 

[MattKing]

What was the question?

Is medium format your main format?
Clearly, Bormental puts greater weight on extensive depth of field than many of us do, so I would assume that smaller formats would suit him better.
Thinking about this I took a look through my Photrio Gallery uploads, which well not totally representative of all I do, are still indicative. I guess I'm not so focused (pun intended) on depth of field. I do think I made some fun use of it here though: "Group Portrait" - 6 x 4.5 on Portra.

 

[wyofilm]

Is medium format your main format?
Clearly, Bormental puts greater weight on extensive depth of field than many of us do, so I would assume that smaller formats would suit him better.
Thinking about this I took a look through my Photrio Gallery uploads, which well not totally representative of all I do, are still indicative. I guess I'm not so focused (pun intended) on depth of field. I do think I made some fun use of it here though: "Group Portrait" - 6 x 4.5 on Portra.

We got pretty deep in the weeds!

The shallow dof makes your example photo, but I think your subjects are beyond caring.

I shoot mainly MF and I sometimes have trouble keeping the light out! Shutter speeds are sometimes too slow when compared to 35mm SLRs.

 

[Helge]

36x24 has the “magical” property of having very roughly equivalence between film plane area and active retinal area of humans (with max f stop of about 2.5 and the very rough equivalent of 24mm for the immobile single eye, discounting the outmost attention directing peripheral vision).

A medium format camera is kind of like seeming the world through a giants eye. Usually a giant with very little peripheral vision, but still.

 

[warden]

These lenses will not paint the same picture (DOF difference). You need more water to fill the bigger bucket if you want to transmit the same exact image. You need equal DOF for that.

Right. When I was starting out I didn't know that I needed more light to make MF do what I wanted it to do. I mistakenly thought f11 @ 500 would result in the same image (including the same DOF) no matter the format, but that isn't true and at first I was getting images with too little depth of field in MF. So for me MF does "need more light" than 35mm as you say.

It's not a dealbreaker and I've adjusted my process to get what I want but I can see why new users of MF cameras are initially surprised at their results (happily or unhappily) when they see their images with less depth of field than they are used to.

 

[film_man]

Is medium format my main format? I no longer shoot medium format! I did spend a few years where it was my main format indeed with a variety of Hasselblads and other stuff and then I had a year where the RB67 was the only camera I'd shoot except when i was at the beach with the Nikonos. But eventually I gave up on the size and slowness and downsized back to 35mm. Well...35mm is all nice and great but I wanted to slow down so I skipped medium format all together, hopefully I'm getting my 4x5 will arrive Monday.

 

[cayenne]

So far, Medium Format has been my ONLY foray into shooting film, at least in recent history.

When I was a teen, I got ahold of a Nikon FA black body camera. My dad got one on a cruise and after I started playing with it, they got me one too.
I shot just for fun, only on auto really for the most part till college.

I didn't really touch a camera till the Canon 5D3 came out and originally I bought that for video....but starting migrating into stills heavily.

So, after years with that, I bought a Kickstarter project that sounded fun...I got the ONDU wooden pinhole camera, that shot 120 MF film and could shoot put to 6x12 panoramic images.

I'd not even heard there were other film formats other than 35 film till I saw this and started researching.

The idea that I could shoot other aspect ratios natively intrigued me and with MF seeming to rival many digitals in fidelity or at least being about same caliber, I thought I'd try this.

I got the pinhole camera and decided THIS was fun, and unusual, and gave me something new creatively to work with. I've stuck with MF primarily due to the aspect ratios, and I love the looks of it.

I researched and bought into a Hasselblad system, I got the 501CM with 80mm lens and fell in love with the "square". I found that it required new ways of thinking and composing images, I liked that it was good to shoot with the subject in the center of the image.
The one I bought came with the 80mm CT I believe....I have since bought the CTi 50mm and the CT 150mm.

I found a Yashica MAT-124 in mint condition at a garage sale for $75....another square shooter that is fun and portable.

I hadn't planned really to get much more than this, but I fell into a sweet deal on a mint condition Fuji GSW690 III, and while I've not had opportunity to shoot a lot through it yet, I like what I've done so far. I mostly have been shooting MF B&W, but with the Fuji I went color and what fun the has been.

So, as you might can tell, I"m addicted to different than "normal" aspect ratios shot natively, without cropping, etc.

I

I got hooked watching a fun photographer on YouTube named Nick Carver : https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCLcKQhTO6i0oq10S234vWyA

I was bowled over when I saw his video of his shooting of an old broken down liquor store using a Shen Hao 6x17 MF view camera.

The price on these however, was outrageous, but I saved and finally found one on Amazon for a decent price and didn't have to risk ordering from China, not knowing what tariffs might be added, if I were to receive it at all, especially with the pandemic starting up about then.

Yep, 6x17....I LOVE it, I've had a few very fun captures on this, it is time consuming, takes more thought, etc...and you only get 4 images per roll of 120 film.
BUT, I can shoot things pano, which. I love without stitching...one click of the shutter and it is capture.
I'm looking to get a 150mm Nikkor for it, I have the Nikkor 90mm for it...I'm using same lenses Nick has as that you have to get one with image circle large enough to cover the 6x17 image...and I figure he did the leg work for me finding the lenses that work with this.
I next hope to get a good filter system for this, so I can shoot some large, ppanoramic long exposure images...something you really can't do on digital with multiple images and stitching.
I am also saving to get a 2nd back for this camera, so I can have one loaded with B&W and the other with Color.

This was expensive...no doubt about it, but OMG....talk about FUN and new experiences. LOL, I thought I got looks and conversations with passers by with the Hassy and the Yashica...but people are just so interested when they see me pulling out the 6x17...and going under a dark cloth, etc

I get a lot of looks and curious folks which is fun to explain to them what I'm shooting, etc. Youngsters are intrigued by something they've never seen, and older folks sometimes even know what MF film is, they often seem to have had TLRs back in the day.

So, that's my analog gear. It started with a whim on Kickstarter pinhole camera and well...blew up into much more.

I still have mine and my fathers old Nikkon 35mm cameras and lenses...and my cousins wife gave me her old Pentax, I don't know the model...but at some point I may do 35mm film.

But I'm sort of at the place right now, to where if I want to shoot "normal" aspect ratios, I'll do digital (Canon 5D3 and Fuji GFX100)......but for really interesting things, I'll dig out the MF gear.

( I know this is analog discussions, but I found other uses for the MF Hassy lenses..they work AMAZINGLY well on the GFX100 "mf" digital camera with a metabones speed booster)...and give me some digital images unlike I've seen before....but that's just a quick aside.

Anyway, for me, at this time, it is either Medium format film....or I go digital.

TGIF!

cayenne

 

[warden]

So far, Medium Format has been my ONLY foray into shooting film, at least in recent history.

When I was a teen, I got ahold of a Nikon FA black body camera. My dad got one on a cruise and after I started playing with it, they got me one too.
I shot just for fun, only on auto really for the most part till college.

I didn't really touch a camera till the Canon 5D3 came out and originally I bought that for video....but starting migrating into stills heavily.

So, after years with that, I bought a Kickstarter project that sounded fun...I got the ONDU wooden pinhole camera, that shot 120 MF film and could shoot put to 6x12 panoramic images.

I'd not even heard there were other film formats other than 35 film till I saw this and started researching.

The idea that I could shoot other aspect ratios natively intrigued me and with MF seeming to rival many digitals in fidelity or at least being about same caliber, I thought I'd try this.

I got the pinhole camera and decided THIS was fun, and unusual, and gave me something new creatively to work with. I've stuck with MF primarily due to the aspect ratios, and I love the looks of it.

I researched and bought into a Hasselblad system, I got the 501CM with 80mm lens and fell in love with the "square". I found that it required new ways of thinking and composing images, I liked that it was good to shoot with the subject in the center of the image.
The one I bought came with the 80mm CT I believe....I have since bought the CTi 50mm and the CT 150mm.

I found a Yashica MAT-124 in mint condition at a garage sale for $75....another square shooter that is fun and portable.

I hadn't planned really to get much more than this, but I fell into a sweet deal on a mint condition Fuji GSW690 III, and while I've not had opportunity to shoot a lot through it yet, I like what I've done so far. I mostly have been shooting MF B&W, but with the Fuji I went color and what fun the has been.

So, as you might can tell, I"m addicted to different than "normal" aspect ratios shot natively, without cropping, etc.

I

I got hooked watching a fun photographer on YouTube named Nick Carver : https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCLcKQhTO6i0oq10S234vWyA

I was bowled over when I saw his video of his shooting of an old broken down liquor store using a Shen Hao 6x17 MF view camera.

The price on these however, was outrageous, but I saved and finally found one on Amazon for a decent price and didn't have to risk ordering from China, not knowing what tariffs might be added, if I were to receive it at all, especially with the pandemic starting up about then.

Yep, 6x17....I LOVE it, I've had a few very fun captures on this, it is time consuming, takes more thought, etc...and you only get 4 images per roll of 120 film.
BUT, I can shoot things pano, which. I love without stitching...one click of the shutter and it is capture.
I'm looking to get a 150mm Nikkor for it, I have the Nikkor 90mm for it...I'm using same lenses Nick has as that you have to get one with image circle large enough to cover the 6x17 image...and I figure he did the leg work for me finding the lenses that work with this.
I next hope to get a good filter system for this, so I can shoot some large, ppanoramic long exposure images...something you really can't do on digital with multiple images and stitching.
I am also saving to get a 2nd back for this camera, so I can have one loaded with B&W and the other with Color.

This was expensive...no doubt about it, but OMG....talk about FUN and new experiences. LOL, I thought I got looks and conversations with passers by with the Hassy and the Yashica...but people are just so interested when they see me pulling out the 6x17...and going under a dark cloth, etc

I get a lot of looks and curious folks which is fun to explain to them what I'm shooting, etc. Youngsters are intrigued by something they've never seen, and older folks sometimes even know what MF film is, they often seem to have had TLRs back in the day.

So, that's my analog gear. It started with a whim on Kickstarter pinhole camera and well...blew up into much more.

I still have mine and my fathers old Nikkon 35mm cameras and lenses...and my cousins wife gave me her old Pentax, I don't know the model...but at some point I may do 35mm film.

But I'm sort of at the place right now, to where if I want to shoot "normal" aspect ratios, I'll do digital (Canon 5D3 and Fuji GFX100)......but for really interesting things, I'll dig out the MF gear.

( I know this is analog discussions, but I found other uses for the MF Hassy lenses..they work AMAZINGLY well on the GFX100 "mf" digital camera with a metabones speed booster)...and give me some digital images unlike I've seen before....but that's just a quick aside.

Anyway, for me, at this time, it is either Medium format film....or I go digital.

TGIF!

cayenne

Great post!

 

[Bormental]

@cayenne I agree with @jawarden, it was strangely entertaining!

 

[Besk]

36x24 has the “magical” property of having very roughly equivalence between film plane area and active retinal area of humans (with max f stop of about 2.5 and the very rough equivalent of 24mm for the immobile single eye, discounting the outmost attention directing peripheral vision).

A medium format camera is kind of like seeming the world through a giants eye. Usually a giant with very little peripheral vision, but still.

Interesting, I once read it was 35mm lens at 2.8. Still pretty close. The problem is what is the area that is in good focus. I would say that it varies but I do
think that a 50mm lens is better at presenting the area of good focus.

 

[Helge]

Interesting, I once read it was 35mm lens at 2.8. Still pretty close. The problem is what is the area that is in good focus. I would say that it varies but I do
think that a 50mm lens is better at presenting the area of good focus.

Well, you could say that human vision is really a 400mm lens camera with a lot of “wasted” image circle around it. The center, sharp “tele” part of the retina is what makes tele lenses so alluring because it reminds us of the center part of our retinal image that we often want to draw closer to have a better look at.
And the change of perspective gives the illusion of shorter distances to far objects, when there is no references around them.
A classic example is hikers thinking there is hours to a mountain by foot, when really there is days.

On the other hand, the eyeball has a ca. 120 horizontal motion and light detection ability, which would make it very approximate a 12mm lens.
And of course the eye turns all the way to the side of the socket, so the resolution is actually potentially there in snippets.

The better answer is therefore that the human eye is a scanner, and not a camera.

When your eye turns to a certain angle, the head is inclined to start turning also.
The angle at which this head turning starts, corresponds approximately to a 24mm lens.
That is 53 degrees horizontal.

 

[etn]

Yep, 6x17....I LOVE it, I've had a few very fun captures on this, it is time consuming, takes more thought, etc...and you only get 4 images per roll of 120 film.
BUT, I can shoot things pano, which. I love without stitching...one click of the shutter and it is capture.

Cayenne, great story, thanks for sharing.
If you like 6x17: do you know the film "Koudelka shooting Holy Land" ?
this documentary movie depicts him going through Israel and Palestine with an Xpan and a 6x17 which he uses handheld. Very inspirational. It's also an eye-opener on the situation in this part of the world. My favorite quote: "One wall, two jails."

 

[cayenne]

Cayenne, great story, thanks for sharing.
If you like 6x17: do you know the film "Koudelka shooting Holy Land" ?
this documentary movie depicts him going through Israel and Palestine with an Xpan and a 6x17 which he uses handheld. Very inspirational. It's also an eye-opener on the situation in this part of the world. My favorite quote: "One wall, two jails."

Oh wow!!

I'd not heard of that...I'll have to look that one up!!

LOL, I"m flattered that so many enjoyed my story of my path to MF photography. If I were to delve into 35mm...I'd like to have a Xpan type camera for the pano thing.

That being said, I'm trying to get some friends of mine that do 3D printing to print me a couple of bodies I can use for shooting 35mm in a pano type aspect ratio...the Brancopan: https://www.cameradactyl.com/brancopan

By the way, he has released these camera files for free after the KS campaign went so well.

I've also wanted to build the Goodman Zone camera too: https://www.doragoodman.com/goodmanzone

Which is MF...I have the Mamiya Press lens to use interchanbly on both of them...and the film back for the Goodman one.

Anyway...fun stuff!!

C

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

It really depends on the day (I can waffle between 6x6 square to 6x7m, 6x12, even 6x18 pinhole, all the way up to 8x10 to 14x17 ULF), but I do shoot more medium format than anything else. I've shot more film through my Rolleiflex 2.8E and my Lomo Belair X6/12 than with any of my other cameras, although I really do like my Mamiya RZ67. Most recently I've been on a large-format bender, doing a lot of 8x10, but I keep coming back to medium format for the combination of portability, relative low cost, and quality.

 

[john_s]

I'd like Medium Format to be my only format, but realistically there are times when 35mm can't be beat (Leica in a theatre with an f/1.4 lens, for example). I do love handling and using MF negatives (maybe left over from my introduction to B+W which was contact printing from a box camera).

 

[brainmonster]

I'm still trying to decide how I feel about medium format. I just picked up a Kiev 6C and had a tough time a few times getting in-focus shots on the microprism center-spot focusing screen (no split screen until Kiev 60). I suppose it'll take a little bit of practice.

Still, the images with Ektar look similar to what I could achieve with a full frame digital camera. Still not sure if it's worth the cost and effort yet, despite having coveted MF before getting this camera.

I was thinking about getting a TLR but not sure now (I ordered one previously but it got missent so I got a Kiev instead)

 

[etn]

Still, the images with Ektar look similar to what I could achieve with a full frame digital camera.

I think it all comes down to
1) what format you want the end result to be: a digital file or a piece of film, as well as what you do with it (printing, showing "digitally", etc.)
and
2) what is more fun to you, digital or film capture and working with computer vs working with chemicals (in other words "lightroom vs. dark room")

The good news is that there is no right or wrong here, pick the one you like best

 

[Helge]

I'm still trying to decide how I feel about medium format. I just picked up a Kiev 6C and had a tough time a few times getting in-focus shots on the microprism center-spot focusing screen (no split screen until Kiev 60). I suppose it'll take a little bit of practice.

Still, the images with Ektar look similar to what I could achieve with a full frame digital camera. Still not sure if it's worth the cost and effort yet, despite having coveted MF before getting this camera.

I was thinking about getting a TLR but not sure now (I ordered one previously but it got missent so I got a Kiev instead)

You need to learn to stop down some more and use a tripod in low light.
That’s one of the advantages of MF, that you can stop way down without diffraction.
You clearly grossly missed focus on the skater in the front.
Learn to judge distances and stop down for these types of shots.

Otherwise there is really no competition with the right scanner, compared to FF digital.
MF is vastly better WRT resolution.
Even with a bad scanner colours/tonality and dynamics are still way better on film.

 

[Bormental]

That’s one of the advantages of MF, that you can stop way down without diffraction.

Precisely the opposite. It's actually the disadvantage of MF, that you must stop down to get a comparable DOF for situations like this, losing shutter speed. You're trading DOF blur for motion blur then.