Size of format and quality of imaging inherent in that size. A 400% increase in size over 35mm.
New to medium format -> need advice!
-
A
- Thread starter James-EG
- Start date
Recent Classifieds
-
For Sale FS: Tamron 150mm f/6.3 Lens
- Started by B.S.Kumar
-
For Sale FS: Royal Soft Focus 150mm f/4.5 Lens
- Started by B.S.Kumar
-
For Sale Kodak Aerochrome 1443 Offcuts, the last I'll be selling
- Started by MCB18
-
For Sale 9 Rolls FUJI Fujifilm SUPERIA PREMIUM 400 27 exp 3 pro packs
- Started by orbitaldebris
-
For Sale Nikon Nikkor-H 85mm f1.8 AI'd
- Started by Oldwino
Forum statistics
Size of format and quality of imaging inherent in that size. A 400% increase in size over 35mm.
Nearly, with 6x7.
35mm is 864 square millimeters in area. Add 3000 to that to get the area of 6x7. (24x36mm vs. 56x69mm)
Even 645 is about 2.7 times the area of 35mm.
I too was going to respond with this but figured "nah, too pedantic" when the gist is yep, medium format has much more film area for the same image.
In my view it is more important to contemplate the aspect ratio first, and perhaps the shooting style second, before jumping into a MF system.
One of the attractions of MF is the fact that different aspect ratios exist, and these can be very appealing in their own way. Hasselblad and most TLR's produce square 6x6 format. It takes some getting used to, to appreciate and compose in square format. It does have its own magic, no doubt about it. The 645 and 6x8 systems are 4:3, and the 6x7 is very close to 8x10 paper. If you are going to do darkroom printing, your format will determine how much cropping in which direction you'll have to do to fit in on a standard paper size. Alternatively you will be doing a bit of paper trimming on a guillotine. All MF aspect ratios apart from square work better on standard paper sizes than does 35 mm with its 3:2 (which is only good for jumbo i.e. 4"x6" prints). For me 645 is the sweet spot, as I print a lot on 12" x 16", and it crops minimally down to 8" x 10". I also have two 6x7 systems, especially if I want more detail after scanning. Of course one can make a mighty fine print from those as well. 6x7 prints onto 11" x 14" or 8" x 10" with virtually no cropping. At those sizes, grain will be just about invisible for normal speed films. Since 645 is good enough for my largest print sizes by a comfortable margin, the fact that it stretches the film further (15-16 vs 10 exp) allows for more experimental shooting and fewer roll changes.
As for shooting style: Shooting at eye level with a prism finder vs shooting with a waist level finder are two quite different approaches. It is for this reason that I still keep my RZ Pro system, as it is great for waist level and lower angle shots. The TLRs are also mostly used in this way, but they do not come close to the close-focusing abilities of the RZ Pro. Most serious cameras come with both WLF and prism finder options and possibly others such as turrets, but there is usually a particular type of finder that feels more "right" for a given camera than the other types. For the Hasselblad and Mamiya RB/RZ type cameras, that is arguably the waist level finder. For the Pentax 6x7 it is arguably the prism finder. For this reason more than others, my RZ and Pentax 67 images look different, because they were mostly taken from different perspectives. WLFs don't offer metering, so if TTL metering and auto exposure are important to you, then a metering prism finder is what you have to get.
There are lots to like and dislike between different brands, but the above are in my view more important primary considerations. I have Mamiya systems in 6x7 (RZ) and 645 (Pro TL and AF-D II), as well as Pentax 67 II plus a fairly comprehensive set of lenses. They are all excellent, and I never have a worry about the quality of the results I can achieve. It is more about what output I want, which lenses I want to use etc. I happen to have the 80/1.9 Mamiya lens, which I bought with the Pro TL. That is a very nice combination, to say the least. You would not think as much of 645 if you used lesser lenses on it, but even then it is loads easier and more fun than printing from 35 mm. I am not saying 35 mm lenses aren't sharp enough, but you really need to know your craft to get consistent good large prints from 35 mm negatives. As for Bronica, Hasselblad, Contax, Fuji etc I have heard only good things about them. The MF systems are almost all excellent, though some are more expensive to maintain or more difficult to find parts and accessories for.
One of the attractions of MF is the fact that different aspect ratios exist, and these can be very appealing in their own way. Hasselblad and most TLR's produce square 6x6 format. It takes some getting used to, to appreciate and compose in square format. It does have its own magic, no doubt about it. The 645 and 6x8 systems are 4:3, and the 6x7 is very close to 8x10 paper. If you are going to do darkroom printing, your format will determine how much cropping in which direction you'll have to do to fit in on a standard paper size. Alternatively you will be doing a bit of paper trimming on a guillotine. All MF aspect ratios apart from square work better on standard paper sizes than does 35 mm with its 3:2 (which is only good for jumbo i.e. 4"x6" prints). For me 645 is the sweet spot, as I print a lot on 12" x 16", and it crops minimally down to 8" x 10". I also have two 6x7 systems, especially if I want more detail after scanning. Of course one can make a mighty fine print from those as well. 6x7 prints onto 11" x 14" or 8" x 10" with virtually no cropping. At those sizes, grain will be just about invisible for normal speed films. Since 645 is good enough for my largest print sizes by a comfortable margin, the fact that it stretches the film further (15-16 vs 10 exp) allows for more experimental shooting and fewer roll changes.
As for shooting style: Shooting at eye level with a prism finder vs shooting with a waist level finder are two quite different approaches. It is for this reason that I still keep my RZ Pro system, as it is great for waist level and lower angle shots. The TLRs are also mostly used in this way, but they do not come close to the close-focusing abilities of the RZ Pro. Most serious cameras come with both WLF and prism finder options and possibly others such as turrets, but there is usually a particular type of finder that feels more "right" for a given camera than the other types. For the Hasselblad and Mamiya RB/RZ type cameras, that is arguably the waist level finder. For the Pentax 6x7 it is arguably the prism finder. For this reason more than others, my RZ and Pentax 67 images look different, because they were mostly taken from different perspectives. WLFs don't offer metering, so if TTL metering and auto exposure are important to you, then a metering prism finder is what you have to get.
There are lots to like and dislike between different brands, but the above are in my view more important primary considerations. I have Mamiya systems in 6x7 (RZ) and 645 (Pro TL and AF-D II), as well as Pentax 67 II plus a fairly comprehensive set of lenses. They are all excellent, and I never have a worry about the quality of the results I can achieve. It is more about what output I want, which lenses I want to use etc. I happen to have the 80/1.9 Mamiya lens, which I bought with the Pro TL. That is a very nice combination, to say the least. You would not think as much of 645 if you used lesser lenses on it, but even then it is loads easier and more fun than printing from 35 mm. I am not saying 35 mm lenses aren't sharp enough, but you really need to know your craft to get consistent good large prints from 35 mm negatives. As for Bronica, Hasselblad, Contax, Fuji etc I have heard only good things about them. The MF systems are almost all excellent, though some are more expensive to maintain or more difficult to find parts and accessories for.
I'm happy to read this( altough it's not from TS himself) because if you're thinking you going to make better pictures with a bigger camera; it's not ! Your faults are more visible
Maybe the TS should tell us what he likes to do with MF and give some examples of his 35 work.Happy searching !
I'm happy to read this( altough it's not from TS himself) because if you're thinking you going to make better pictures with a bigger camera; it's not ! Your faults are more visible
Happy searching !
I think I could have rephrased the wording a bit more carefully with what I said.
The size and presentation of the larger neg/trans. is what gets people excited in the first place. If they have spent a lot of time building and refining their skill and technique in 35mm, the move to medium format will quite simply showcase those skills. Everybody knows (or should know!) that the most elaborate and feature-packed camera is not going to make a patch on a lack of photographic skill. I've seen this with large format users and think they spent too little time 'way back when' in 35mm or 6x6, considering that the larger formats would infuse their work with the Midas tough, but know.
| Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links. To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here. |
PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:  |