Understanding Medium Format sizes

[hoffy]

Howdy,

This Medium format thing keeps nagging away at me.

I am very seriously thinking of at least preparing for the jump to medium format.

The thing for me, I suppose, is that the end result will include printing my own B&W images. The big hassle is that I will need to upgrade my enlarger (not a big deal, considering the Durst CLS35 that I have only cost me $30 and will still get used).

To ensure that I get the right equipment, I just want to understand what the typical Medium Format sizes are.

Considering what is available for use with 120 roll film, what are the typical frame sizes? I have been offered an enlarger that does up to 6x6 (a Durst M606) and want to determine whether I am going to hamstrung myself by buying this one.

Thanks in advance

 

[Paul Cocklin]

645, which is 6x4.5cm, 6x6cm, and 6x7cm are pretty much the standard three sizes.

 

[davidst]

A lot of older folders make 6x9 images eg my Voigtlander Bessa, and my Ziess Icon. I'd be looking for an enlarger that does negs up to 6x9; 6x6 is too restrictive. Then you can do anything up to 6x9, including 35mm film.

 

[elekm]

If you end up with 6x9 -- and this is going to sound like overkill -- I would get a 4x5 enlarger. Then you can be assured that you'll have a very good light path for a negative of that size.

Although I would think that a medium format enlarger should be able to handle 6x9 without difficulty.

 

[hoffy]

In relation to 645 camera's, would the native way of holding them produce a portrait or a landscape frame?

 

[Paul Sorensen]

In relation to 645 camera's, would the native way of holding them produce a portrait or a landscape frame?

Most seem to do landscape, for example the Mamiya and Pentax 645s or the Bronica ETR series cameras. There are also, of course, others that are portrait such as older 645 folders and the Bronica and Fuji 645 rangefinders.

 

[Alan W]

I'd make it at least a 6x7,Omega enlargers are common,cheap and easy to find negative holders for(at least over here!)That way when you get that RB67 you wont have to upsize again!

 

[mwdake]

I agree, get an enlarger that does at least 6x9.
But, then again seeng as 4x5 enlargers are practically given away these days why not go whole hog.

 

[thisismyname09]

If you plan on eventually moving to large format, i recommend an omega D2 or equivalent. That's what I was searching for, but I ended up getting a B8 (up to 6x9) because it was cheap and literally brand new in box, lenses and all. Then again, the availability depends on where you live. I know omega products are plentiful in America, but i'm not so sure about Australia.

 

[fotch]

What mwdake said. Get at least a 6x9. What it seems like now, the 4x5 are maybe even less money.

 

[PeteZ8]

4x5 enlargers with dichroic color heads (great for adjusting B&W contrast with RC papers) or nice cold heads can be had for under $200 these days. Just make sure you get one with a good assortment of negative holders, they can be hard to find and expensive if you need one you don't have. The whole is worth far less than the sum of its parts for sure.

Since 4x5 enlargers can do 35mm on up, they are a very smart buy these days. They really are no larger (although heavier) than a 35mm enlarger and you get a single tool that can do most anything.


To answer your question about formats, depending on which body you go with many medium format bodies have rotating backs that allow you to switch from landscape to portrait. Mamiya 67's are one example. The viewfinder is square and has lines in the ground glass in both directions so you can compose either way. Square format (6x6) bodies obviously do not need this feature. The SLR/rangefinder style bodies like the Mamiya 7 are landscape only, but being an SLR or rangefinder style they are fairly easy to hold verticly like you would with a 35mm.

 

[archphoto]

I have not seen a couple of formats: 6x8 (Mamiya RB and RZ, Fuji) that can be used in a 6x9 enlarger and the panorama formats 6x12 (4x5" enlarger), 6x17 (5x7" enlarger) and 6x24 (8x10" enlarger). All use 120 format film, exept 6x24 (I have not seen a rollfilm holder for it at least)

6x6, 6x7, 6x8, 6x9 and the panorama formats can come from tchnical camera's aswell.

So it is not a bad idea to get a 6x9 enlarger.

Peter

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

I'll also recommend getting a 4x5" enlarger. They're cheap and plentiful and generally more solid than dedicated 6x7 or 6x9 enlargers, and they have longer, sturdier columns, for bigger enlargements when you want to make them, but they're not usually so big that they can't be moved easily (with the exception of a few floor-standing models) or fit into a room with a normal ceiling height.

 

[georgecp]

I second David's recommendation. The price difference for a 4x5 enlarger vs. 6x9 is negligible and it is a more versatile and solid machine..

 

[Ian David]

Another vote for a 4x5 enlarger if you can find one (I have a DeVere 504 - built like a tank). If you are feeling the need to jump to MF, it is probably only a matter of time before you feel the need to jump to LF...

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

...and then you'll want to shoot ULF and make contact prints and get rid of the enlarger.

 

[sanking]

Over the years I have used many MF cameras, SLR, RF and TLR.

My experience is that the size of the format is nearly always less important than the quality of the camera and lens system.

For example, my Mamiya 7II 6X7 cm system is slightly better than 6X9cm Fuji 690 system, and 6X4.5cm Fuji GA645Zi is better than vintage 6X9cm folders like Super Ikonta C and Bessa II.

I own and work with all of the cameras mentioned above. All these cameras are fun to work with, but be aware that film sze does not always equate to better image quality.

Sandy King

 

[2F/2F]

The common sizes are 6x4.5, 6x6, 6x7, and 6x9. 6x8 is also not that rare. You can shoot it with a Mamiya RB or a Fuji GX680. 6x12 is often shot in 4x5 view cameras.

If you have the room and it is cheap, I'd go for a 4x5 enlarger. You can do any of the above formats with one. If not, I'd get a 6x9 enlarger. They are a bit smaller and cheaper (if not free).

 

[Sirius Glass]

I'll also recommend getting a 4x5" enlarger. They're cheap and plentiful and generally more solid than dedicated 6x7 or 6x9 enlargers, and they have longer, sturdier columns, for bigger enlargements when you want to make them, but they're not usually so big that they can't be moved easily (with the exception of a few floor-standing models) or fit into a room with a normal ceiling height.

I got a 4x5 enlarger with dichroic color heads (great for adjusting B&W contrast with VC papers)

Steve

 

[Steve Smith]

My enlarger only goes to 6x7 and was the reason I bought an RB67 (one of the reasons). I wish it went to 6x9 as I have a nice 6x9 Zeiss folder which I would like to use more.

I also wish 5x4 enlargers were being 'given away' in this country. They still seem to get high prices here. A 5x4 enlarger for our equivalent of $200 is unheard of.


Steve.

 

[Curt]

When you get a 4x5 enlarger , you will be ready for the move up to large format, often debated on what size it starts, 4x5 and larger. It's a whole new World to move to sheet film, but that's getting ahead here, a 4x5 enlarger will allow you the height to make some large sized prints where you might be limited with a medium format enlarger. It depends on your absolute requirements and physical space.

 

[Jerevan]

Contrary to other people jumping to suggesting 4x5" enlargers, I am not convinced a 4x5" enlarger is always a better thing - it's substantially bigger, heavier and may use unusual, expensive bulbs. If you are starting out in medium format a medium format enlarger will do very well. And doing huge enlargements may not be the first thing you start out to do, either. The cost of feeding the enlarger with huge sizes of paper isn't cheap. The "Durst M606" you suggest (I guess it is a M605 or possibly an older 606) is a great enlarger, if you get the negative carriers and diffusion boxes.

 

[davidst]

Yes, Jerevan is right, the 4x5 is too big. Something which will go to 6x9 is ample. The 4x5 is large format, not medium format. Medium is what you said you wanted to try.

Large format and small negs is a compromise. Fit the enlarger to the expected neg size. I've been there with many enlargers.

But can I suggest go to 6x9 to cover yourself for the future, never know when a nice 6x9 format folder camera turns up, and you'll be able to enlarge with it. It is a really nice size, and they are beautiful cameras to use.

Whatever you buy make sure you have the neg carriers. And if you miss out there's always another around the corner...the search is the journey.

 

[Steve Smith]

Contrary to other people jumping to suggesting 4x5" enlargers, I am not convinced a 4x5" enlarger is always a better thing.

I think it depends on future plans. If you see yourself going to medium format then you may end up doing 4x5 later.

If you think you will stick to 35mm then a dedicated 35mm enlarger may be the better choice.

If I ever get a 5x4 enlarger, I will use it for medium format as well but keep my LPL 6700 just for 35mm.


Steve.

 

[hoffy]

Another vote for a 4x5 enlarger if you can find one (I have a DeVere 504 - built like a tank). If you are feeling the need to jump to MF, it is probably only a matter of time before you feel the need to jump to LF...

Like this one:

http://cgi.ebay.com.au/De-Vere-504-...ries?hash=item3ef7c15e6d&_trksid=p3286.c0.m14

Hardly someone asking for this to be given away!:rolleyes:

Thanks for the advice. I cannot really see myself going much beyond MF. Money and space are the limiting factors. Nice ideas and all.

That being said, I don't think I will get rid of the little CLS35. I have to setup my darkroom each time I use it and if I was just doing 35mm, that little enlarger is just so much easier to manage.

I know one of the stores in Adelaide have some second hand gear set up as "kits" (Total Photographic for those very few from around here). Next time i am in there I might just have a look.

Cheers