When to choose Medium Format.

[atlcruiser]

Mamiya 7 and x pan or x pan and M6 depends on what i am going to do.

The mighty X pan is jsut amazing

I originally thought of the X pan as a wide 35mm but now I see it more as a skinny MF. The quality of the lens really blows anything short of some leica lenses away; and it gves them a run for their money!

 

[DWThomas]

My camera arsenal ranges from Minox to 4x5 and its accumulation spans fifty+ years. In the last few years, being retired, I have gravitated to medium format out of a sort of "Goldilocks Theory" -- not too big, not too small, ju-u-ust right. That said, I now have a assortment of MF gear to choose from. For what I consider "really serious" work, I go to my Bronica SQ-A. When portability is an issue, I have a 6x6 (Perkeo II) and a 6 x 9 (Ercona II) folder. For reasons maybe no more than just plain GAS, I recently acquired a Yashica 124G which has been my walk-around gear on some recent trips.

I've done some pinhole work with my old B&J 4x5 in recent years, but I don't have a good enlarger, or even a good space for 4x5, and the film is expensive. (Much of what I used to shoot on 35mm is now done with "alternate technology" which means the pictures are free -- after the initial 3 or 4 grand of capital outlay! )

 

[R gould]

I use MF 90% of the time, and although I have a bronica etrs outfit I use either folders or one of my 3 TLRs,I like having just the one lens to use, and not having to carry bagfuls of gear,mostly I take a camera,weston master 5 exposure meterand some filters, with some of the folders a seperate rangefinder, and I am much the same with 35mm, mostly fixed lens folders/riged body classics, if I am likely to need lenses I have a couple of old pentax slrs, they get used once in a blue moon,Richard

 

[hpulley]

I've been wanting to go to MF but since everything I have is for 35mm, I would need to get a camera, reels and tanks, enlarger and everything all over again since my Nikor reels are 35mm/126, my Durst M300 is 35mm/126 or smaller, for hybrid workflow I can scan 35mm negatives or else prints. I find with sharp lenses and good sharp 100 ISO film I can print 11x14" prints just dandy with my 35mm setup, so I have yet to go to medium format at all. Perhaps one day...

Sometimes I think it would be simpler for me to skip MF and just shoot sheet film for landscapes, develop it in my trays and make contact prints instead of enlarging them at all. I wouldn't have to buy anything but the cameras and lenses at least.

I always carry at least two bodies with me in case one packs it in or to shoot different emulsions. I usually have at least 3 lenses and accessories as well, flashes, either in a small bag, a medium bag or a big heavy backpack if I'm going all out. For the weight I carry I could easily carry a large format camera. My backpack weighs about 18kg/40lbs fully loaded (no kidding) with 5 bodies and many lenses. On a good hike I never know if I'll do macro of moss and insects and flowers, telephoto of birds, wide angle landscapes so I find it best to carry it all. Good exercise too...

I suppose I could get MF film developed and printed for me but that just seems wrong somehow now that I'm really getting into doing it myself in 35mm again.

 

[MattKing]

I just picked up from the lab a roll of Ektachrome 100GX that I shot in my Mamiya 645 Pro. Once you have looked at medium format slides on a light box, you'll have one answer to the OP's question. If you can then turn around and project them, you'll have an even better one.

 

[2F/2F]

I shoot it instead of 35 when I want sharpness and fine grain in standard size prints (8x10 and 11x14), and when I can get what I need using a slightly slower and less convenient camera, with slower lenses. I shoot it instead of sheet film when 4x5 is overkill in quality, or difficult or impossible to shoot due to timing. I probably split my shooting between small and medium format 50/50. Sheet film I will just shoot now and again, though I used to shoot it much, much more. I mostly use 35 for low light and casual shooting, though I often shoot it just for the lovely look it gives. FWIW, most of my favorite personal work has been shot on 35mm. This is pretty much because the 35 is the camera best suited to many of my favorite things to shoot, not because I am claiming that 35mm is superior, or is "my favorite" format. I just think that much of the subject matter that I find interesting lends itself well to being shot with a small, fast, and easily portable camera that does well in low light hand held situations.

 

[keithwms]

So I'm asking: when do you shoot medium format?
...
I'm thinking, how do you set yourself up for shooting medium format, how do you visualize a medium format picture - how do you manage to haul around a bigger camera that still allows you to see what you're doing without the size of it getting in your way?

For me, MF is the perfect balance between the format advantages of LF (tonality, detail, enlargement factor, larger view of the scene) and the ease of use of 35mm (quick, ready to go with many shots, nimble).

Visualization feels about the same for me, across all formats. I don't hunt for photographs in my viewfinders or on the ground glass. If nothing else, a larger camera trains you to do a more efficient job of scouting!

Some people feel that an MF or LF camera really comes between them and the subject. I suppose that is because they are trying to use the camera to find the subject, something that I find very inefficient and uncomfortable. Better to train your eyes and your imagination than your forearms.

 

[removed account4]

i don't really have a reason for using one camera instead of another. i am not
interested in sharpness or the resolution ( i couldn't care less )
that everyone rants and raves about when they do the whole "tech talk" thing.

i just grab whatever might be handy and that i have film for ( or loaded into holders ).

 

[Top-Cat]

I'm doing MF street photography. I am a former digital shooter, converted to film due the way it looks and then to MF, because of the way it handles perspective and DOF.

How does it handle perspective differently other than different DOF to focal length ratio? I seem to find it somewhat equally difficult to find a bellows or shift lens for both cameras, though there might be some chance it might be slightly more available for MF and I haven't found it yet.

Also, I'm curious if I'm right in MF being a way of getting faster lenses all over due to the size - my reasoning for that being that the grain of a 400 film will, due to the size of any medium format behave more like a 100 ISO film on 35mm and thus you get the speed of 400 ISO on 2.8, which is more like 100 with 1.4 on 35mm otherwise?

Am I wrong to think you can get away with faster film on MF (I find I often like 400 ISO B&W both because grain has a different look on film as well as I also get a slightly better contrast out of it).

 

[hpulley]

I just picked up from the lab a roll of Ektachrome 100GX that I shot in my Mamiya 645 Pro. Once you have looked at medium format slides on a light box, you'll have one answer to the OP's question. If you can then turn around and project them, you'll have an even better one.

I forgot about chromes. I only have 35mm slide projectors too... I used to shoot mostly chromes for color, just loved them but chromes are a pain to get processed around here now, not great results what I had done last year so I've dropped them for now. I love that they are the shot I took, no post processing can save them if they are wrong, thus chromes are the purest image in my opinion.

I do love looking at medium and large chromes on the light box from other guys but I couldn't do anything else with them!

 

[MattKing]

I forgot about chromes. I only have 35mm slide projectors too... I used to shoot mostly chromes for color, just loved them but chromes are a pain to get processed around here now, not great results what I had done last year so I've dropped them for now. I love that they are the shot I took, no post processing can save them if they are wrong, thus chromes are the purest image in my opinion.

I do love looking at medium and large chromes on the light box from other guys but I couldn't do anything else with them!

It took a fair bit of looking, but I found a medium format projector at a reasonable price ($200.00) at a store that has a history of charging too much for used equipment .

I think that the projector gives me more benefit than $200.00 would give me if spent on a new lens.

 

[pgomena]

I like MF for any situation when I think I'm going to be in a target-rich environment. MF allows me to work faster than a view camera. I can make more pictures in a day, and it's easier to manage when jumping in-and-out of a car on a road trip. I prefer LF for situations where I think I'm likely to find only a few images during an outing. 35mm has fallen to the bottom of my list, only one notch above digital. I only own old manual-focus Canons, and my eyes ain't what they used to be. I'd rather use a bigger format any time.

Peter Gomena

 

[theoria]

In comparison with smaller formats, because it uses longer lenses to achieve the same angle of view, the main subject and the objects in the foreground and background appear closer, thus "compressing perspective". This is an effect that I find compositionally advantageous. As regards DOF, for isntance a 80mm@2.8 normal MF lens has a dof of 35 cm, which is shallower than the 45mm of a 50mm@1.4 on a 35mm camera (both focused at 3m), but what i like most is the quality of the bokeh you can achieve on MF (this might be partly subjective, but the sheer principles of optics have certainly something to do with it).
As regards film speed, yes, the grain is less visible at the same ISO in MF. BTW Ilford Delta 3200 looks very good in 6x6 format. See for instance the photo below (developed in an almost ehausted microphen solution):

How does it handle perspective differently other than different DOF to focal length ratio? I seem to find it somewhat equally difficult to find a bellows or shift lens for both cameras, though there might be some chance it might be slightly more available for MF and I haven't found it yet.

Also, I'm curious if I'm right in MF being a way of getting faster lenses all over due to the size - my reasoning for that being that the grain of a 400 film will, due to the size of any medium format behave more like a 100 ISO film on 35mm and thus you get the speed of 400 ISO on 2.8, which is more like 100 with 1.4 on 35mm otherwise?

Am I wrong to think you can get away with faster film on MF (I find I often like 400 ISO B&W both because grain has a different look on film as well as I also get a slightly better contrast out of it).

 

[Q.G.]

In comparison with smaller formats, because it uses longer lenses to achieve the same angle of view, the main subject and the objects in the foreground and background appear closer, thus "compressing perspective".

They don't.
Same angle of view, same position, same perspective.
Different angle of view, same position, still the same perspective.

You get "compressed perspective" in the 'far away' parts of a scene.
It's there in superwide and wide pictures, though very small.
It's there in the normal lens pictures.
It's there in tele lens pictures, too.
The difference is that with increasing focal length, the angle of view decreases, and you are (or rather: could be) cropping to the far away bits.

Now what you do when putting a longer lens on a MF camera is make sure that, from the same location (important), the larger frame is 'filled' with the same angle of view as a shorter lens on a smaller format camera.
As such, it produces no difference, compared to the shorter lens on a smaller format. Why, it's even meant to keep things the same: the longer lens restricts the view to what you would get on a smaller format.


The only way to change perspective is to change position relative to the subject. You can compress perspective using a wide angle lens by moving away from your subject.
You then get lots of perhaps uninteresting stuff surrounding your subject in the frame. And you then select a longer lens to crop that unnecessary stuff away and enlarge the bit you are interested in.
But the working bit re perspective is not the longer lens, but the moving away bit, the changing position part.

 

[jp498]

As regards film speed, yes, the grain is less visible at the same ISO in MF. BTW Ilford Delta 3200 looks very good in 6x6 format. See for instance the photo below (developed in an almost ehausted microphen solution):

That does look good. I wouldn't have bothered with film in such low light not knowing about that.

 

[theoria]

Thanks Q.G. for correcing me. For the most part of this year, since I picked up medium format, I lived with this impression. I guess it was bad explanation for the changes I saw in the way objects seem to be arranged in the frame. Is it the use of WLF? The compositional demands of the square format? The fact that the vertical and horizontal angle of view are the same, so what involuntarily makes into the frame is different? I have no clear answer yet.

They don't.
Same angle of view, same position, same perspective.
Different angle of view, same position, still the same perspective.
.

 

[agfarapid]

I think the OP's question goes to the heart of photography: How we see or pre-visualize a photo. Like the OP I sometimes spend more time deciding which camera (35mm, MF-- folder, SLR or TLR, etc.) For me, it's a function of if I'm shooting for a specific purpose (people, things, or landscapes) or just driving around with a camera in the trunk (walking around usually isn't much of an option since my location is more rural/suburban). That being said, most of my shooting is with MF because I enjoy the larger negative size and (for me) far greater tonal quality and gradation with b&w. My camera of choice will usually be my Fuji 645 GS folder or my Mamiya C33 TLR with a 65mm wide angle. I do tend to fall in or out of love with one camera or system at any moment in time. Last moth I was shooting primarily with my 35's because I felt guilty since I hadn't used them in months and since I recently bought a 100 ft roll of Legacy 100! Last week I was shooting sunsets with my Mamiya 645 kit because I needed to use a longer than normal lens, in this case a 150. Ultimately, the real answer to the question is that "it all depends"...

 

[Mark Fisher]

My rule is pretty simple: medium format if I can use a tripod and 35mm if not. It is a nice change now and then to shoot 35 for me just to shoot that crazy 6x9 aspect ratio!

 

[emtor]

I don't hunt for photographs in my viewfinders or on the ground glass.
Some people feel that an MF or LF camera really comes between them and the subject. I suppose that is because they are trying to use the camera to find the subject, something that I find very inefficient and uncomfortable. Better to train your eyes and your imagination than your forearms.

What you say is very true. Not only because it sounds sensible, but because I've had the habit of doing exactly that: -Hunting for photographs in the viewfinder. It simply doesn't work. These days when I find an interesting area, I leave the gear in the car and walk around with a piece of cardboard that I've cut a square hole in and look through that. If I like what I see I return to the car and bring with me either my Rolleicord or my Bronica ETRSi-gear. In this way the camera becomes a tool and no longer gets in the way between me and the subject.

 

[Top-Cat]

They don't.
Same angle of view, same position, same perspective.
Different angle of view, same position, still the same perspective.

You get "compressed perspective" in the 'far away' parts of a scene.
It's there in superwide and wide pictures, though very small.
It's there in the normal lens pictures.
It's there in tele lens pictures, too.
The difference is that with increasing focal length, the angle of view decreases, and you are (or rather: could be) cropping to the far away bits.

Now what you do when putting a longer lens on a MF camera is make sure that, from the same location (important), the larger frame is 'filled' with the same angle of view as a shorter lens on a smaller format camera.
As such, it produces no difference, compared to the shorter lens on a smaller format. Why, it's even meant to keep things the same: the longer lens restricts the view to what you would get on a smaller format.


The only way to change perspective is to change position relative to the subject. You can compress perspective using a wide angle lens by moving away from your subject.
You then get lots of perhaps uninteresting stuff surrounding your subject in the frame. And you then select a longer lens to crop that unnecessary stuff away and enlarge the bit you are interested in.
But the working bit re perspective is not the longer lens, but the moving away bit, the changing position part.

That's pretty much the way I understand it as well, being into drawing from the start I'm somewhat familiar with linear perspective, so I've spent some time thinking of the correlation between focal length and linear perspective/ perspective distortion - considering theorias answer there, I think he's a little confused as to certain aspects of perspective distortion (which makes me think of something I read about perspective distortion in the book "Light, Science and Magic" stating that the perspective distortion isn't related to focal length in itself, but the angle of view compared to the viewers relation to the subject).

Anyway, theoria DID make me consider one thing, considering there's less barrel distortion in shorter focal length - doesn't that imply that you get a more rectilinear than curvilinear perspective distortion using MF due to their generally longer focal lengths?

 

[Q.G.]

Dang!
I wrote a lengthy reply, and when i clicked the Post button, i ended up in the untethered flash on a Rollei thread!

It's an angle of view/lens design thing, not a focal length thing.
Lenses on larger formats have longer focal lengths to keep the same angle of view.
A wide angle lens on a larger format has a longer focal length than a wide angle lens having the same angle of view on a smaller format. Yet both are wide angle lenses, with the same wide angle lens design. And the same distortion issues.
So no: the fact that lenses on larger formats are longer does not mean they suffer less barrel or pin cushion distortion.

Compressed perspective, by the way, is not a distortion. It is real, true.
The fact that it seems odd is due to the fact that we, with our relatively wide angled eyes, do not see it in isolation. It's taken out of context. But not distorted.
Just lke converging lines: we have no issue with them when they are horizontals, yet think them strange, wrong even, when they are vertical. Yet we see them without noticing them every time we look up at a tall structure. But that's because they are in context then. See them wihout physically looking up, and we think they are odd.
Purely a context thing. So don't be too hasty applying a term like "distortion" to it. Because it's not.

 

[MattKing]

The perspective doesn't change between formats, but the depth of field does.

Assuming same angle of view and aperture, smaller formats will exhibit more depth of field.

There may also be some important differences arising from the larger viewing screens in MF SLRs - even if they are "only" psychological differences.

 

[MattKing]

Dang! ....

Q.G.:

I never took you for a Country and Western fan

 

[Q.G.]

The perspective doesn't change between formats, but the depth of field does.

Assuming same angle of view and aperture, smaller formats will exhibit more depth of field.

Until you blow the smaller format up to a same size print as that of the larger format picture.
Then it's the same again.

 

[Q.G.]

Q.G.:

I never took you for a Country and Western fan

The thing i wrote first... And i'm not even considering letting you know what i said first.
And "dang" was the next best 'real word' (as opposed to *@&$%#) that came up in my head.
So i must be.

What can i say? I'm full of surprises.