Motivation for shooting MF

[Alan Edward Klein]

Of course they do, but its a marginal difference in the grand scheme of things. When medium format is already high enough quality, do you really need that little extra 4x5 gives?

No. But I got a huge GAS attack early during Covid and bought a new 4x5 camera with four lenses and all the other stuff that goes with it.

 

[Ai Print]

Of course they do, but its a marginal difference in the grand scheme of things. When medium format is already high enough quality, do you really need that little extra 4x5 gives?

In the larger darkroom derived print sizes like above 20x24” it really starts to show it’s ability. Along those same lines the tonality really opens up a noticeable bit.
For those reasons I really do love using 4x5 and even 8x10 but 6x6 remains my go to for most of my work.

 

[Neil Grant]

"Lenses for pro Medium Format cameras are in general better corrected than 35mm lenses"
NO they aren't. Although the more modest apertures typical of 'mf' lenses helps the optical designer, the increase in focal length and attendant increase in abberations is a more important factor.

 

[Don_ih]

I think it is likely there has been a great deal more effort put into developing and refining the best medium format lenses than for any other format. That used to be what people were willing to pay the most for.

 

[flavio81]

"Lenses for pro Medium Format cameras are in general better corrected than 35mm lenses"
NO they aren't. Although the more modest apertures typical of 'mf' lenses helps the optical designer, the increase in focal length and attendant increase in abberations is a more important factor.

You think a 80mm lens in 6x6 would have "more aberrations" than the equivalent 45-50mm in 135 format "because of the increase in focal length", but this isn't correct. Both lenses are the same angle of view, and this is what matters. Both will likely be double gauss designs (same optical system), because of the same angle of view -- although of course the concrete optical system to be used depends on the aperture too.

Now, if one is f1.4 and the other is f2.8, the latter has more potential for correction of aberrations.

 

[MattKing]

I would like to hear a professional's opinion here. Maybe @Nodda Duma ? In my personal (and therefore, limited) experience, my lenses for 135 format are sharper (in terms of lp/mm before enlarging) and more flare resistant than medium format lenses, so I always assumed that it's easier to design a lens for smaller image circle.

I think it is actually the other way around.
Due to the fact that 135 is going to be enlarged more, the demands on the lens designer are higher in the first place.
However, the design requirements for the lenses for medium format cameras intended for the professional market were probably more exacting than for the "kit" or "amateur" lenses sold to many users of 135 cameras. The more expensive lenses for 135 - think of the Canon L lenses as an example - are/were designed with more exacting standards.
In most cases the pro level MF cameras weren't offered with more than one tier of lenses. That was different with 135.

 

[narsuitus]

... I got a huge GAS attack early during Covid and bought a new 4x5 camera with four lenses and all the other stuff that goes with it.

I just viewed your Flickr albums and was very impressed with the high quality of your images. Since we shoot with similar photographic equipment and we both use an Epson V850 scanner, I have a few questions to ask.

I primarily use my RB67 to shoot individual portraits and still life.
I primarily use my 4x5 inch camera to shoot landscape, architecture, and still life.

Based on your Flickr images, I noticed that you recently bought a Chamonix 4x5 inch camera with 75, 150, and 300mm lenses. What was the fourth lens you purchased? Comparing the 4x5 and the 6x7, how much difference do you see in image quality?

I also noticed that all your portraits were shot with an RB67 medium format camera. Since I have never used my 4x5 for portraits, how significant is the ergonomic difference and image quality difference between 4x5 and 6x7 for individual portraits?

Plus, now that you also shoot with 4x5, don't forget to change your Photorio.com shooter description from "Medium Format" to "Multi Format."

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

I just viewed your Flickr albums and was very impressed with the high quality of your images. Since we shoot with similar photographic equipment and we both use an Epson V850 scanner, I have a few questions to ask.

I primarily use my RB67 to shoot individual portraits and still life.
I primarily use my 4x5 inch camera to shoot landscape, architecture, and still life.

Based on your Flickr images, I noticed that you recently bought a Chamonix 4x5 inch camera with 75, 150, and 300mm lenses. What was the fourth lens you purchased? Comparing the 4x5 and the 6x7, how much difference do you see in image quality?

I also noticed that all your portraits were shot with an RB67 medium format camera. Since I have never used my 4x5 for portraits, how significant is the ergonomic difference and image quality difference between 4x5 and 6x7 for individual portraits?

Plus, now that you also shoot with 4x5, don't forget to change your Photorio.com shooter description from "Medium Format" to "Multi Format."

Thanks for your comments. I also have a 90mm lens with Center Filter, the only lens with one. I don't print so I can only compare scans. 4x5 seems better. Sharper and better tonal grade than medium format scans. Of course, I'm scanning now with a V850 rather than a V600 which I used for my medium format shots. So that could be the difference as well. Like you, I haven't shot portraits on 4x5 yet. The portraits you see on my Flickr were done with my RB67 a long time ago and scanned with a V600. Hope this helps.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Profile changed to multi format.

 

[narsuitus]

@Alan Klein

Thanks!

 

[Nodda Duma]

I would like to hear a professional's opinion here. Maybe @Nodda Duma ? In my personal (and therefore, limited) experience, my lenses for 135 format are sharper (in terms of lp/mm before enlarging) and more flare resistant than medium format lenses, so I always assumed that it's easier to design a lens for smaller image circle.

Generally speaking, the shallower the marginal ray ie the smaller the image circle vs the diameter of a “normal” focal length optic, the easier the design.

By “easier” I mean better corrected for a given f/#.

The trend continues today with even smaller form factors. However there is a limit. Personally, I find 2.2-2.5um pitch sensors in the APS - Full Frame format range to be the sweet spot for visible optics. There’s a diffraction-limited f/2.5 design for 1/2” format fpa’s floating around in the world somewhere that I was pretty happy with. Smaller than that and maximum potential performance starts to fall off due to increasing Nyquist frequency.

Also worth noting that more emphasis has been placed historically on designing lenses for 35mm format than any other format for consumer photography. That plays a part as well in comparative performance.

 

[Down Under]

MF is very Zen. My Rolleiflex kit is as minimalist as I will ever get - camera, lens hood, one or two filters, a few rolls of film, maybe a Gossen or my old Weston Master V if I feel the need for a meter - I could add a few other accessories, but they aren't really needed.

This simplicity lets me concentrate on the images I make. Back home in my dakroom, processing the film and printing the best images are delights - no fussing about with having to make up to 36 small prints from 35mm negatives.

I get more keepers from my Rolleis than any other camera I own, including my digital Nikons.

Quality over quantity. If only I had figured out all this in the 1960s when I started out in photography...

The cost of 120 film in Australia is a worry, but I've posted about this before, so let's not go there this time.

Now and then I think about ridding myself of the rest of my film cameras, but ten minutes with my 'flexes and I wipe that silly notion from my brain.

 

[Neil Grant]

You think a 80mm lens in 6x6 would have "more aberrations" than the equivalent 45-50mm in 135 format "because of the increase in focal length". Yes, the longer lens will be more difficult to design with as low aberrations as the shorter lens. It's easily observable if you just compare how lenses perform in practice. For example, compare Mamiya 180mm vs 360mm lenses. They do not give the same performance. The 360mm, despite being about 1 stop slower than the 180mm, shows considerable lateral colour compared to the 180mm. Mamiya offered a APO lenses in their line up for long lenses if you needed relatively aberration free performance. Nikon also with their ED options and Canon with fluorite alternatives. But note, always in long focal length lenses. There was no benefit in normal lenses. Another observation: historically, early optical designers found it easier to make good microscope objectives compared to telescope or camera lenses. Because the focal lengths were shorter.

 

[Rick A]

My motivation for shooting MF, when I feel like shooting snapshots instead of dragging my 8x10 around.

 

[xtolsniffer]

Thanks for your useful insights everyone. I've spent a lot of time looking at prints (and slides) of the sorts of things I enjoy taking and have generally concluded that for me, grain in black and white adds something to the image while grain in colour detracts. I've also concluded that I should stop worrying about it and just enjoy using whatever equipment and film and just take more pictures as all equipment is good and taking photos is fun even if I'm not very good at it.

 

[MARTIE]

I like the freedom that putting a camera on a tripod gives and for me it feels counter-intuitive to put a 35mm camera on a tripod. Hence I use mf and lf.
Not that you can't put a device that has been designed to be handheld onto a tripod, but why would you? Or perhaps you'd prefer to watch the World Cup, Super Bowl or the World Series on your smart phone?

 

[Jay Schrotenboer]

Or perhaps you'd prefer to watch the World Cup, Super Bowl or the World Series on your smart phone?

I would absolutely prefer to watch those on my smart phone, all three at once. Less likely to be bored by actually watching them that way .
Personally I think I have the opposite reaction to the OP. I for a long time thought that I would continue using 35mm but it just doesn’t have the draw for me. Not really sure of the reason, could be because when I got my first medium format camera it came from a professional who had chosen to quit because of his wife’s health (I know nothing more about them) and the camera must have been practically new. I had been using a pentex zx-30 before that, so the step up in quality on all fronts was amazing. My first pictures with the camera blew my mind and I think I have been addicted ever since.

 

[Ai Print]

Even with my Flexbody now down due to a broken shutter actuator rod (replacement on the way to the tune of $1,800) I am still motivated to make images with my backup. Gotta see square, gotta see accurately and Hassies do that in spades…

 

[removed account4]

What is it about shooting MF that gets you going? Is it the process, the cameras, the image quality? If it's image quality, what aspects of MF images get you excited? Just curious...

me ? I think its because each roll is 24 exposures or less. I like not having to wait until I finish 36 or 72 images, and when I process MF film I don't have to deal with a can opener or shuffling sheets in a tray.. everything else, image quality &c I don't really notice, I just use a camera to expose film I don't care about that other stuff.

 

[faberryman]

What is it about shooting MF that gets you going? Is it the process, the cameras, the image quality? If it's image quality, what aspects of MF images get you excited? Just curious...

Square format and larger negative.

 

[abruzzi]

me ? I think its because each roll is 24 exposures or less. I like not having to wait until I finish 36 or 72 images, and when I process MF film I don't have to deal with a can opener or shuffling sheets in a tray.. everything else, image quality &c I don't really notice, I just use a camera to expose film I don't care about that other stuff.

everytime I see those Olympus half frame cameras, I shudder, thinking of having to get through 72 shots!

 

[narsuitus]

I am motivated to compromise and shoot with my medium format cameras when ...
1. I need better image quality than my smart phone will deliver,
2. I need better image quality than my 35mm film cameras will deliver,
3. I need to travel with a lighter photographic load than my 4x5 inch large format view camera.

 

[markjwyatt]

to me the jump in image quality from 35mm to MF is enormous. I expected a similar jump from MF to LF but, there was none. to meMF is the ideal compromise between weight, complexity and image quality. If I could have only one camera, it would be my Hasselblad 501c.

Push MF to 6x9, and you are taking a big step towards LF.

 

[markjwyatt]

For some reason, medium format just hits me in my sweet spot. Like most I imagine, I began with 35mm and began dreaming about MF. My first MF camera was a nice E2 Rollieflex. ...Next came a Bronica S2a system that I used for years and years. Very nice images, and of course, interchangeable backs. But my eyesight changed, and I found I could no longer use the viewfinder. ...

My dad went through this. He had a Mamiya C330f, and was shooting weddings, events, etc. He bought a Bronica SQA system anbd sold me the C330f. He loved teh film backs, and other conveniences of an SLR, but said what he missed about the C330f was the bright viewfinder and the ability to focus as his vision changed.

 

[markjwyatt]

me ? I think its because each roll is 24 exposures or less. I like not having to wait until I finish 36 or 72 images, and when I process MF film I don't have to deal with a can opener or shuffling sheets in a tray.. everything else, image quality &c I don't really notice, I just use a camera to expose film I don't care about that other stuff.

Another related but probably lesser advantage is no rewinding, and thus less chance for scratching the emulsion.