MF and macro

[redbandit]

Even though they made macro lenses, and extension tubes for certain focal lengths.. Is going macro with MF cameras, in my case a mamiya 645 and actual worth while endeavour

 

[wiltw]

Shooting macro with medium format allows you to shoot a larger actual dimension of the subject at a particular scale.
For example, shooting 1:1 scale, your subject can be 56 x 56mm (assuming shooting square format) rather than being limited to a subject which is 24mm x 36mm.
In that sense, it is totally worthwhile endeavor to be able to capture an entire subject, rather than being forced to capture 56 x 56mm subject at 1:2.33 scale (i.e. at less than half size)
Put differently, you can image a 24mm x 24mm object at 2:1, rather than being limited to 1:1 shooting with 135 format gear., That is worthwhile capability, too.

 

[redbandit]

i only have a 645..

But is there a genuine increase in quality in the print? I have no interest in going past 11x14.

 

[John Wiegerink]

i only have a 645..

But is there a genuine increase in quality in the print? I have no interest in going past 11x14.

If you're not going past 11X14" 35mm will probably be more than enough. Most of the high, and I do mean high quality 35mm macro lenses can handle that with no problem. Just make sure the rest is up to the task. Things like film/development, enlarger/scanner and even paper have and influence on your final result.

 

[Dan Fromm]

Hmm. I used to shoot flowers and such on 35 mm ( 24x36) with decent macro lenses. I was always slightly frustrated by the results. If I framed the principal subject tightly I got good detail in it and gave up its setting. If I shot at lower magnification to put the subject in its context I lost fine detail in the subject. I solved the problem by going up to 2x3 (6x9 in metric) (56x82) and, again, using a decent macro lens. I could get an image of the subject large enough to have good detail and its surroundings.

That said, I don't see the point of going up in format from 24x36 mm to 56x42. There's not enough increase in negative size.

 

[xkaes]

Since you already have the 645 camera, I'd make the move. You don't need to use a Mamiya macro lens(es) -- or spend a ton of money -- (and I think the larger format will make a worthwhile difference). LOTS of people shoot 35mm macro with macro lenses from manufacturers other than their camera maker. All you need is a macro lens(es), designed for ANY format, in the macro range that you are interested in -- and an adapter for your camera (assuming you can fire your camera's shutter without a Mamiya lens attached).

Some ideas are at:

http://www.subclub.org/fujinon/macrolenses.htm

 

[ntenny]

I think the only third-party option for the M645 is Pentacon Six mount with manual stop-down. But the Mamiya 80/4 macro isn’t expensive (there’s one for $179 at KEH).

-NT

 

[MattKing]

Are you photographing flat, two dimensional originals or three dimensional subjects?
With the former, flat field performance is more critical. With flowers, bugs, jewelry et al, not so critical.

 

[wiltw]

i only have a 645..

But is there a genuine increase in quality in the print? I have no interest in going past 11x14.

The classic statement about medium format is that, for the same subject, more film area is used to capture the same amount of subject, leading to both less perceptable grain and better gradations of tonal transitions across the subject.
Of course, shooting at 1:1 on either 135 vs. medium format, the 'more area per subject' does not apply...you simply capture a larger subject at 1:1

 

[btaylor]

Without resorting to purchasing macro lenses— extension tubes, bellows or even close-up lenses will all work pretty well. I’ve had good results from all of these options.

 

[redbandit]

For sure, much depends on how close Red wants to get -- a little or a lot. A little? Get some close-up lenses. A Lot? Get a "macro" lens.

define the difference between a close up lens and a macro.

I happen to be using a mamiya 645 1000s with a eye level prism finder with the built in light meter, and the need for the light meter to function with the lens, the lens needs to have the little snap in plug on it.

I hate the plug, so i have only taken the lens off once since i purchased the rig. just to see how it worked.

 

[xkaes]

Without resorting to purchasing macro lenses, extension tubes, bellows or even close-up lenses will all work pretty well. I’ve had good results from all of these options.

For sure, much depends on how close Red wants to get -- a little or a lot. A little? Get some close-up lenses. A Lot? Get a "macro" lens. He mentioned "macro" which usually means around 1X. Most might think that means an 80mm or so for 645, but you can get there with shorter lenses and less extension.

 

[Dan Fromm]

In the US dialect of photographer speak, "close up lens" means a positive lens, often a meniscus, that's screwed into a "prime" lens. The close up lens makes the combination's focal length shorter than the prime lens' focal length, so for a given extension the distance from film to subject is higher than it would be without the close up lens and the magnification is higher. With a close up lens mounted, focusing to infinity is impossible.

In the US dialect of photographer speak, a macro lens is a lens that is optimized for near distances.

In the US dialect of lens marketer speak, a macro lens is a lens that can focus on close subjects, optimization for near distances be damned.

 

[xkaes]

With a close up lens mounted, focusing to infinity is impossible.

While that is true for cameras where you can't shorten the distance between the lens and the film, for the many where you can, it's not true.

 

[Dan Fromm]

While that is true for cameras where you can't shorten the distance between the lens and the film, for the many where you can, it's not true.

Yes, Joe. The OP's camera is a Mamiya 645, its flange-to-film distance is fixed. In this case your correction is true but irrelevant.

 

[lxdude]

In the US dialect of photographer speak, "close up lens" means a positive lens, often a meniscus, that's screwed into a "prime" lens. The close up lens makes the combination's focal length shorter than the prime lens' focal length, so for a given extension the distance from film to subject is higher than it would be without the close up lens and the magnification is higher. With a close up lens mounted, focusing to infinity is impossible.

An advantage of those closeup lenses is that they do not affect the exposure. They can also be stacked; a set of +1 and +2 can be combined to make +3. The quality of the lenses must be high (typically doublets) to avoid degrading the image too much.

A very highly corrected closeup lens, capable of really good results, is a shorter camera lens attached to the front of the lens on the camera, using a reverse adapter, filter thread-to-filter thread.

Also, a very good macro lens is a regular lens, typically a normal lens, reversed and attached to the camera with a reverse adapter which has the lens mount on one side, filter thread on the other. Focus is fixed because of being directly attached to the camera or extension tube(s); a bellows will allow focus to be changed.
I used a normal lens, reversed, for several years before I bought a macro lens. I chose the image size by selecting extension tubes. I focused by moving back and forth slightly, a technique I still use when I'm not using a tripod. The lens was an M42 mount, and the adapter came with a ring to thread on to depress the diaphragm pin, which made the diaphragm manual. You have to have a way to close the diaphragm, or accept the shallow DOF fully open.

Finally, a teleconverter behind the lens will create greater image magnification at any distance, and that holds for the closest focusing distance. For example, a 2X turns an 80 into a 160, while maintaining the same closest focusing distance.

 

[benveniste]

Even though they made macro lenses, and extension tubes for certain focal lengths.. Is going macro with MF cameras, in my case a mamiya 645 and actual worth while endeavour

Without knowing what other cameras you own, or what sort of projects you want to take on, I can't say if it's worthwhile to you.

I own a Pentax 120mm f/4 macro for their 645 system along with a set of extension tubes. As you'd expect, it's a solid, well performing lens. I also own a 120mm f/5.6 Nikkor-AM(ED) for 4x5". I've used the latter lens exactly once in Rhododendron State Park and failed to record any keepers. On the other hand, I used the former lens to create several sets of 24" prints of large coins and medals. I could reproduce the same shots today with my current digital gear, and we could then debate which is subjectively "better."

One thing to think about is support gear. The combination of high magnification and heavy gear is a recipe for vibration. I use a Beseler copy stand or a 3-series tripod with a 3-way head and a geared column, and the latter is barely adequate.

So in short, if, like me, you enjoy shooting medium format film, then you may enjoy the challenges of medium format macro. But there's less objective reason to use it in 2023 than there was when I acquired the lens a dozen years ago.

 

[redbandit]

what i would LIKE to do

https://i0.wp.com/jonasraskphotography.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/dscf00272.jpg?ssl=1

 

[eli griggs]

Yes, a MF bellows, like the one I had for my first Hasselblad setup, is a wonderful tool and it can be used with "non macro" lenses to do very nice close in works.

Bellows use gives you a map to many possibilities, photographically and, yes, I'd love to add one to my current Hasselblad kit I'll buy again, if I am able to find what I want in a macro lens, particular the 135mm Hasselblad bellows lens.

I suggest you buy a bellows setup for your camera and practice often, using it to isolate your subject from the surrounding scene, as a near daily practice that'll lead you into better handling for your work and equipment.

 

[koraks]

what i would LIKE to do

Better stick to 35mm. You'll run into depth of field problems with anything bigger and there's no solving them, except by going digital and applying focus stacking.
Moreover, the examples you show would require magnification ratios on medium format (and larger) that would make the DoF issue a non-starter.

With macro, the general rule of thumb is that the problems multiply by an order of magnitude every time you step up in film size.

 

[wiltw]

A macro DOF calculator https://www.kielia.de/photography/calculator/
that permits selection of sensor size shows that 135 format with 50mm at 1:1 has virtually the same DOF as Hassy size sensor with 75mm at 1:1

 

[Slixtiesix]

My experience with MF macro work is that you really need a rock solid tripod in the first place. Preferably one size bigger than the camera would require under "normal" conditions. Without a sturdy tripod and a cable release, there is no use investing in high quality lenses or other macro equipment. Blur from micro-shake will ruin the sharpness. Mirror pre-release (if the camera has it) is also nice to have.

 

[redbandit]

My experience with MF macro work is that you really need a rock solid tripod in the first place. Preferably one size bigger than the camera would require under "normal" conditions. Without a sturdy tripod and a cable release, there is no use investing in high quality lenses or other macro equipment. Blur from micro-shake will ruin the sharpness. Mirror pre-release (if the camera has it) is also nice to have.

have an idea of an affordable heavy duty tripod that would work with a mamiya 645 1000s?

 

[neilt3]

A macro DOF calculator https://www.kielia.de/photography/calculator/
that permits selection of sensor size shows that 135 format with 50mm at 1:1 has virtually the same DOF as Hassy size sensor with 75mm at 1:1

That's true for 1:1 , but not if you want to fill the whole frame of film in different formats with the same object .
Most people using a larger format do so to get the same image from a smaller format on a larger piece of film to get better image quality .
( disregarding other reasons such as wanting a shallower DOF or the LF cameras movements etc )

Choose a coin to photograph with a lens at 1:1 that fills the frame on 135 .
To fill the frame with the same coin on 6x6 you need much more magnification than 1:1 , so at 1:1 your not getting the benefit of using more film as your still only getting same amount coverage , just more empty space that you end up wasting by cropping the image when you print it .

Looking at the above image that the O.P wants to do it looks like if he were to use 135 1x life size on the film would be fine , but on a 6x6 camera the lens/bellows combination would need to achieve 2- 3x life size to fill the frame .
Using a half frame camera would only require 1/2 x life size , so much easier to achieve .

If you were to take the same photo @ 1:1 on 10"x8" sheet film you'd be lucky to find it hiding in the grass . 1:1 yes , but not what most people would call macro photography more "spot the grass hopper " !


Please note the above comparative magnification figures to fill the frame are only estimates for example purposes . I'm sure someone could take the time to do the precise calculations if really required !
So with the above in mind , to use the macro DOF calculator to compare the same image framing on different formats , you need to adjust the magnification ratio to suit each format , otherwise your just adding empty space rather than making more use of the extra film .
That'll greatly alter the resulting DOF .

 

[wiltw]

That's true for 1:1 , but not if you want to fill the whole frame of film in different formats with the same object .
Most people using a larger format do so to get the same image from a smaller format on a larger piece of film to get better image quality .
( disregarding other reasons such as wanting a shallower DOF or the LF cameras movements etc )

Choose a coin to photograph with a lens at 1:1 that fills the frame on 135 .
To fill the frame with the same coin on 6x6 you need much more magnification than 1:1 , so at 1:1 your not getting the benefit of using more film as your still only getting same amount coverage , just more empty space that you end up wasting by cropping the image when you print it .

Looking at the above image that the O.P wants to do it looks like if he were to use 135 1x life size on the film would be fine , but on a 6x6 camera the lens/bellows combination would need to achieve 2- 3x life size to fill the frame .
Using a half frame camera would only require 1/2 x life size , so much easier to achieve .

If you were to take the same photo @ 1:1 on 10"x8" sheet film you'd be lucky to find it hiding in the grass . 1:1 yes , but not what most people would call macro photography more "spot the grass hopper " !


Please note the above comparative magnification figures to fill the frame are only estimates for example purposes . I'm sure someone could take the time to do the precise calculations if really required !
So with the above in mind , to use the macro DOF calculator to compare the same image framing on different formats , you need to adjust the magnification ratio to suit each format , otherwise your just adding empty space rather than making more use of the extra film .
That'll greatly alter the resulting DOF .

What you say is true, for the modern photographer who does not adhere to the conventional definition of 'macro' as referring to a SCALED image, usually 1:2 or greater magnification. I will not presume to know what OP has in mind, in the selection of different format for 'macro' work, so I present the assumption of a scaled image, and the trade-off is size of object that fits at same scale (and same DOF in both formats) NO 'right', no 'wrong', simply factual information.