Motivation for shooting MF

[ericB&W]

I think the only motivation for MF is image quality,
i can't see other advantages apart the use of interchangeable
film backs for some cameras like hasselblad mamiya, bronica ecc.

 

[Slixtiesix]

For me it was not only the higher image quality, but also the ease of working with MF slides and negs. It´s easier to judge sharpness and exposure without scrutinizing them with a magnifier. I also like using the waist level finder. I also like the manufacturing quality of the equipment but that was not the main point for me, as you can get that in 35mm as well. Back in the day when I moved up I decided whether I should upgrade to Leica R or Rolleiflex. Decided for MF and I do not regret the choice.

If you like to have pronounced grain, why not using a 3200 ISO film in MF?

 

[narsuitus]

I think the only motivation for MF is image quality,
i can't see other advantages apart the use of interchangeable
film backs for some cameras like hasselblad mamiya, bronica ecc.

For me, two other advantages were:
1. It was easier to retouch a medium format negative than a small format negative.
2. It was easier to carry a medium format camera than a larger format camera.

 

[Deleted member 88956]

If you cannot see or feel a difference between 35 and mf then I'm not sure how to help. And forget the image qaulity difference, which is obvious test lab wise just not necessarily more gratifying.

Generally mf vs. 35 means fewer images recorded, longer time between shots. Equipment wise that is bigger and heavier and slower to use.

Try an in between, get the original Penrax 645. I have reasons for why the original, but that is for a long post.

 

[drmoss_ca]

I've used everything from half-frame to 10x8. I've been through the 'can't take the photo if you don't have a camera in your pocket' stage, all the way to 'if high quality is good then higher quality is better'. The compromises and trade-offs you make will sit most comfortably in different places for different users. I've been through two great thinnings of my herd of cameras, intending at my most severe to reduce them to an F6 and a Hasselblad. The buyers didn't co-operate and I still have a 4x5 and some half-frames, along with some 35mm bodies. Turns out I'm pleased that I do, as I'm currently having all sorts of fun with the Olympus Pen cameras and the OM-2ns, and the F6 is still jaw-droppingly good at its job. But though it all, I have become quite complacent about using an external meter or a cable release, and I'm not the least scared by tripods, even big and heavy ones.
So while I still like and enjoy variety, the single compromise camera I could live with alone would be a 6x6 Hasselblad. I can walk with it and use it hand held. I can stick it on a tripod and use long exposures with quality approaching 4x5. I can change lenses and viewfinders, and use extension tubes. I guess I've got to the point where a quick snap can be something from a phone, or maybe a supertelephoto wildlife shot can be done with the D850. But if I'm making a film photo (and I don't claim special skills at that, just that I enjoy it!), the Hasselblad is the comfortable tool for me.

 

[NB23]

Medium fornat, and Square. It’s about stopping and composing.

Usually, stopping and composing will show on a print. People should undetstand that the photographer has stopped, and composed. Medium format gives you that as opposed to the 35mm quicky snapshots, which show as quicky snapshots.

And the square is magical. It’s the very best format to showcase an image that was natively composed in a square. It has the impact. It’s vertical and horizontal all the same, magical.

You should be able to hang a good square image upside down or sideways and it would work, even a portrait. Square does this.