Making the jump to medium format?

[bo eder]

Well, lots of compelling reasons here to at least deep my feet in the pool. And I think I found a good compromise. If I went Hasselblad, I'd have to dump my 35mm EOS gear to fund it, but I'm not ready to do that, I really like shooting 35mm too.

So I did a bunch of research last night and stumbled upon Bronica. I was reading up on the SQ system, and although great, the look of the box just says "1980s BORING". I hate to say it, but I wanted something with style, and that's when I ran across the older Bronica S2 system. Yes, I read that there may be problems if abused, but I managed to find a seller in Tokyo who had one with the 75mm Nikkor lens and two film backs in mint condition. He had just done a nice clean and work up on this camera and according to him, it's ready to shoot. There was even a guy who demonstrated the camera on YouTube that was very entertaining and gave information on what to expect.

Then I realized I just bought a 50-year-old beast of a camera (it's supposed to be 4 pounds?) that's styled like a Cadillac with all that chrome and steel! I'm looking forward to getting it and taking it out for a shoot. While I wait for it, I gotta get some film and find a strap for it. This is exciting.

Anybody know where I can get a strap for those 'pegs' on the camera? They look a lot like the same posts on a Hasselblad, but I don't know if they're exact copies. Ideas?

I'm looking forward to shooting the squares:w00t:

 

[DREW WILEY]

I consider the qualitative jump from MF to LF to be even greater than the jump from 35mm to MF; and the bigger the film, the easier it is to
print from, if you have the right darkroom gear of course (I just installed my third 8x10 enlarger, and what a chore that was to move!). But each format has its pros and cons, and you can't carry them all at the same time. So ultimately, the best camera is the one you happen to
have with you at any given moment.

 

[flavio81]

You'll have more control over depth of field and placement of focus than you will in 35mm. It's easier to get that "3D" look where your subject pops out from the background.

True. So true.

 

[Black Dog]

True. So true.

+1 on that.

 

[Poisson Du Jour]

Hi all,

Still new guy here - I'm back shooting 35mm and love it. Of course, being here, and other on forums, it's still true that if you're looking for nicer negs and chromes, going up in size is a no-brainer. So I'm contemplating it. But then, I see the work of James Nachtwey, Ralph Gibson, even Andy Summers, among others...and seeing some of their prints as big as 20x30, made from 35mm negatives.....what would be the real point of shooting bigger film?

Why is "looking for nicer negs and chromes" a no-brainer? The skill of the photographer and his ability to visualise a scene, and thus bring it to fruition on film, is far more important than the format in use. That said, you buy the format that best fits your skills — now and into the future. Dreams alone do not make a great photograph.

Yes, I've shot a 4x5 LF once, and those 4x5 chromes are just awesome when you put them on a light table - I can see why someone like Clyde Butcher would print in feet rather than inches - especially if you were shooting 8x10!

With skill and print capacity, anybody using MF can print to the sizes apparently immortalised by Butcher. I print from 6x7 transparencies. And I print to a metre across (do the math if you're not metricated...).I don't print that large from 35mm because the viewing quality suffers the higher the enlargement goes. There are limits, but you can push the envelope more with B&W than chrome. Why would I/do I need large format? Or to turn it around, why do you?

So I was wondering what those of you here get out of shooting the bigger formats (bigger than 35mm) to keep you doing it. I'm not sure I want to make the leap into buying more camera stuff just yet, but I suppose sooner or later I will, but like I said, I'm so impressed with the pros shooting 35mm, it's hard for me to think I'd ever be that good anyway.

There is one (among a few) specialty field in 35mm that MF cannot match, although LF can but with a greater commitment of time. If you are trained in the use of tilt/shift and swing movements (e.g. Canon's tilt-shift lenses), these optics can work wonders (in competent hands) in transforming depth, focus and dimensionality of a scene (fancy swinging a waterfall around for a better look?), but one must have training and visual acuity to do it correctly and to maximum effect without it looking contrived. True, large format does (and more) this but the movements are greater and piggy-back for the same effect (larger format). A lot of my work is now produced in MF printed to very large sizes, but 35mm is reserved for the very reason I have mentioned earlier when a scene requires special treatment. So if you have a speciality in 35mm, stick with that format but complement it with medium format.

Anybody here jump to a bigger format and then dump it all for 35mm?

Probably yes. I suspect there are a great many here on APUG who have done just that, and regretted it!

 

[Ron789]

You'll have more control over depth of field and placement of focus than you will in 35mm. It's easier to get that "3D" look where your subject pops out from the background.

Not necessarily true: lenses for 135 typically have a larger aperture end therefore a similar DOF. For example: a 50mm lens at F/2 has (more or less) the same DOF as an 80mm at F/2.8. A 50mm F/1.4 lens has a shallower DOF than any MF standard lens. An you can shoot with less light or slower film or faster shutter speeds, often meaning you don't need a tripod. That is the flexibility that I really like in 135.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Anyone who thinks you can get an even remotely sharp really large print -say 30x40, for example, from MF is in an utter dream world. It's
like trying to kill a charging rhinoceros with a BB gun. Simple math. Sure, you can back off from a print according to that "standard viewing distance" myth and make anything look acceptable. You can even order a billboard forty feet across printed from a lousy 35mm original. It will look perfectly sharp from a normal viewing distance of a quarter mile away! I have trouble making a 16x20 print from 6x7 which fits in comfortably with a portfolio containing 16x20's enlarged from 4x5 or 8x10, and I've got some exceptional enlarging equipment. In other words, there is more to view cameras than just movements. Size matters. Godzilla has little trouble stomping Bambi if the two cross paths. But lets mention those tilt/shift lenses for smaller formats. I think they're a great idea; but precise focus is far easier on a big
groundglass. And who wants to go around without a big tripod. After all, they are still mighty convenient for whacking people shooting cell
phones and DLSR's off the path.

 

[crumpet8]

Well, lots of compelling reasons here to at least deep my feet in the pool. And I think I found a good compromise. If I went ...

Anybody know where I can get a strap for those 'pegs' on the camera? They look a lot like the same posts on a Hasselblad, but I don't know if they're exact copies. Ideas?

I'm looking forward to shooting the squares:w00t:

Congrats! I'm waiting on a new camera as well and the wait is nearly excruciating! In regard to a strap I think the "optech super pro strap A " is one of the cheaper options with OK reviews. I'm not sure it fits your camera so double check. I know it fits my Hasselblad and remember it saying something about bronica too though the s2 lugs look different
Found for $30 on eBay if you just do a quick search. You'll atleast see how the lugs lock onto your camera.

 

[Poisson Du Jour]

Anyone who thinks you can get an even remotely sharp really large print -say 30x40, for example, from MF is in an utter dream world. ...

Nope. I'm not in an utter dream world. Is that figure in inches or centimetres?
In 35mm, I print up to 61x51cm. I'm up to 80x70cm on 6x7; clients have bought my work; they are not interested in "pseudo-HDR scenes" or "flash-bang-wollop wooden cameras" or images so sharp that their eyelashes a cut just by blinking. What's the go with super-sharp anyway? The best photographs are not super-sharp, nor is it a requirement for them to be: it's how well the photographer brings the image to the camera and to the medium (film or digital) that is far more important; for all I care (or a number of market clients) the image can be anything the imagination can dream of. Except sharp. Why should every photograph have to live up to the hoary old idealist view camera dogma that "this is sharper than anything else on the planet so it is superior"?

Now, nobody (certainly not me), has said anything about perceived or actual difficulty (or otherwise) in focusing tilt/shift lenses. I don't believe, from long experience, it holds true either. That point your mentioned is implausible given the precision of focus that is very easily obtained with or without mathematical input (some people prefer this over precise focus, letting the focus peg take up any small focus errors, and it works well=). What does slow the whole process down is determining just how and why one or both effects are being employed, their interrelationship, and visualising the result in the finished image. Applying tilt and/or shift for the sake of it being there, devoid of any artistic, creative or technical merit in the finished image, makes no sense at all. Same applies to large format.

 

[bo eder]

Perhaps a favor?

Thanks all for chiming in - I'm quite excited about giving this format a go. You'll forgive me for not being super-critical about certain things, I'm happy to try it, and see if the bigger negative would be a really cool thing to go with more.

But now that I have my used camera on order and I'm waiting for it, does anyone here have any 120 film that's expired and won't be used, to give away? I'd like to use it to practice loading the back, and running the camera through some actuations before I put good film in it. I figure a couple of rolls would be good - I could keep using them over and over to practice on.

If anyone is willing to let go of some old film, I'd greatly appreciate it. PM me if you're willing.

Thanks in advance!

 

[georg16nik]

...

In all seriousness, though - the big advantage to any medium format system, in addition to the larger negative, is the lens signature. The glass in medium format cameras, be they single lens systems like the Rolleiflex or an interchangeable lens setup like a Hasselblad, Pentax or Mamiya, just has a different look to it. You'll have more control over depth of field and placement of focus than you will in 35mm. It's easier to get that "3D" look where your subject pops out from the background. And should you feel the need to enlarge to stupendous sizes, you can do so with relative ease.

Lens “signature” and that “3D” look are tied to the optical design of the lens - e.g. floating elements and close focus specifics / OOF rendering, etc;
Format is irrelevant - motion pictures are mostly shoot on 35mm and that cinematic Zeiss master primes 3D charm exist for both 135 and MF formats too.
The original Zeiss Distagon (Erhard Glatzel) was nicknamed “Hollywood” not without a reason - yes, you can have it for MF too, thou a few stops slower than the one for 135 and due to mfg cost and basic physics, a tad softer.
Also, the MF version weights = 135 format 28/2 version + the camera body, your shoes, a sandwich, a bottle of water of your choice.

In regards to formats - most photographers voted with their wallets, ages ago.
The formats debate circles round groups/forums and usually the (+) and (-) of bigger than 135 formats are romanticized infinitely.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

I've said this before but it bears repeating: medium format is a sweet spot, balancing between technical image quality and ease of use/mobility.

That's exactly why I use MF and of course using a Hasselblsd is a love affair.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

It's not being a fanboy;it's being in love

 

[Fr. Mark]

Another fun thing about negatives larger than 24x36mm is contact prints. I might like to have Drew's 8x10 enlargers, and I do have a a nice 35mm and a separate 4x5 enlarger that needs a fair bit of work, but the simplicity of contact prints has an appeal. Burning and dodging are more challenging as might be split grade printing---not tried that yet. Contact prints are pretty much required for UV based printing, too. Some UV processes are less costly than silver based printing (cyanotypes and carbon prints which are based on iron and chromium which are way less costly than Au, Ag, Pt and don't need Se toning). I tend to like contact prints 5"x7" and larger, but I can easily imagine where 6cmx6cm, or 7, or 9 would work pretty well, sometimes 4x5's work as contact prints too. My current favorite film (Ektascan B/RA by Carestream/Kodak) is available up to 14x17. Am tempted to build a camera that big... I'm also very curious about MF slides for projection. Typical kodak carousel projector lenses are OK, I suppose. Are the lenses on MF projectors on par with taking lenses or good enlarger lenses? If not, I'm not sure the increase in film size will be worth it.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

It's not being a fanboy;it's being in love

Loving your camera is fine, Ralph. It crosses over to fanboy-ism when every response to a question about the best tool for a given job is "Hasselblad" (or Leica).

 

[frank]

Well, lots of compelling reasons here to at least deep my feet in the pool. And I think I found a good compromise. If I went Hasselblad, I'd have to dump my 35mm EOS gear to fund it, but I'm not ready to do that, I really like shooting 35mm too.

So I did a bunch of research last night and stumbled upon Bronica. I was reading up on the SQ system, and although great, the look of the box just says "1980s BORING". I hate to say it, but I wanted something with style, and that's when I ran across the older Bronica S2 system. Yes, I read that there may be problems if abused, but I managed to find a seller in Tokyo who had one with the 75mm Nikkor lens and two film backs in mint condition. He had just done a nice clean and work up on this camera and according to him, it's ready to shoot. There was even a guy who demonstrated the camera on YouTube that was very entertaining and gave information on what to expect.

Then I realized I just bought a 50-year-old beast of a camera (it's supposed to be 4 pounds?) that's styled like a Cadillac with all that chrome and steel! I'm looking forward to getting it and taking it out for a shoot. While I wait for it, I gotta get some film and find a strap for it. This is exciting.

Anybody know where I can get a strap for those 'pegs' on the camera? They look a lot like the same posts on a Hasselblad, but I don't know if they're exact copies. Ideas?

I'm looking forward to shooting the squares:w00t:

I have one of these and somehow like using it more than my hasselblad for personal work. It's funkier and the results of the 75 Nikkor focused close and wide open are beautiful, including portraits. I'm waiting for a Nikkor 50f3.5 to arrive very soon.

 

[DannL.]

The Pentax 6x7 and Mamiya 6x6 camera systems that I have used, and I'm sure Rolleiflex and Hasselblads are in that same category . . . were cameras that produced negatives with "no character whatsoever". This is why I now use the Kodak Hawkeye camera which produces negatives that drip with character. I definitely can't disagree with anyone that say's medium format is awesome because of it's look. Having a 6x6 like the Hawkeye makes all the difference in the world. And if you wonder why your prints are boring, on the verge of being completely sterile and lifeless, you just need to try a medium format camera that has a top-notch meniscus lens like the Hawkeye.

 

[DREW WILEY]

I once had a pet redtail hawk named Henry. Hawk poop certainly does have character.

 

[bo eder]

I have one of these and somehow like using it more than my hasselblad for personal work. It's funkier and the results of the 75 Nikkor focused close and wide open are beautiful, including portraits. I'm waiting for a Nikkor 50f3.5 to arrive very soon.

Well, I'm bummed because some issues came up with the S2 so the seller decided to refund me (he said he discovered it damaged while he was packing it). That was honest. So I may be looking at the newer SQ as my other choice now. Bummer.

 

[bo eder]

OK I DID IT!

Far out! I made the jump and stayed within a budget this time!

I know I wanted a cool camera to try out MF with, and I looked at old Hassy's, and old Bronicas. I considered classic TLR's, but in the end, I got a newer (1980's, anyway) Bronica SQ camera with a waist level finder and a 120 back. It came with an 80mm lens, but since I was saving so much money, I made it a kit and also got the 50mm wide angle lens. I love shooting my Canons with the 28/1.8 lens, so I wanted that ability with the Bronica. And I did it all for under $400! Wow. Looking at old price lists when this stuff was new and in-demand, compared to what used prices are, the former owners must be crying.

In about a week I should be stylin'. I am so looking forward to this since I've never really shot medium format. This will mean I'm going to move even slower in my shooting, trying to get 12 keepers, but it's all good mental strengthening, I think.

If anyone has any tips I could use, please feel free. For now, I have to go get some 120 film!

 

[Sirius Glass]

Great and you are shooting square! The 50mm lens with an 80mm lens is a great combination.

 

[bo eder]

Great and you are shooting square! The 50mm lens with an 80mm lens is a great combination.

I was really trying to find a Hasselblad, but if I limited it to one lens, even an old 500c was still in the $700-800 range. It was no longer pocket change at that point. Although I do understand that feeling of holding the Hasselblad - it is a classic. I'm told this Bronica glass should be able to hold its own in this field, so if it does, that'll be good enough for me.

 

[Trond]

I was really trying to find a Hasselblad, but if I limited it to one lens, even an old 500c was still in the $700-800 range. It was no longer pocket change at that point. Although I do understand that feeling of holding the Hasselblad - it is a classic. I'm told this Bronica glass should be able to hold its own in this field, so if it does, that'll be good enough for me.

Good luck with your new camera! A Bronica SQ is a very fine tool, and a classic too..

Trond

 

[bo eder]

Good luck with your new camera! A Bronica SQ is a very fine tool, and a classic too..

Trond

Thanks! I'm definitely looking forward to trying it out. I should see it in a week (it's coming from a camera shop in Tokyo). What's even cooler, is my wife got me an extra film back for Christmas. I was telling her about it and about possibly needing the film back. She found a NOS mint in box 6x6 film back on eBay for $130. I should have all the bases covered for now.

I'll probably shoot color film first and see how well the camera works, practice loading the backs, that kind of stuff. Then the next stop will be colored filters when I load up on Tri-X!

 

[warden]

OK I DID IT!

Far out! I made the jump and stayed within a budget this time!

Sweet! You're not going to regret this. 35mm and MF are both popular for good reasons. You'll love your negatives for sure.