Where does Medium Format Fit in?

[grahamp]

I tend not to use 35mm because I find the cameras are harder to use - I wear glasses and the 35mm finders are more difficult to accommodate. About the only areas 35mm still scores over larger formats for me is in macro, long lens work, and remote control, none of which I do very much, if at all.

The 5x4 kit is chosen for the quality of the format, the anticipated need for movements, and possibly no portability issues.

MF gets the general walking around nod, it is a good travel tool. My MF equipment is TLR and rangefinder.

I suppose if I lost everything and had to start over with one camera, it would be a MF rangefinder (6x4.5 or 6x6) or a TLR. I could get a lot done with that. I'm happy to take the constraints of the equipment and work within it.

 

[markbarendt]

My favorite thing about medium format, in my case an RB67, is composing with that big screen & waist level finder.

Yeah my F5 can do the waist level thing but it ain't the same and I could get finder for my Toyo 45 but using it down real low would be problematic.

 

[k.hendrik]

Yes.

What I'm dreaming of is a 'set' of adapters which allow me to use my Contax G / Nikon / RZ / ERKO 9x12 / Lubitel / Praktica and Ricoh lenses on every camera I feel fit a some chosen time I want to make an image. So for now; I have to think ahead !

ps
bought yesterday a ANSCO, Agfa Iso-Rapid and Adox Prontor 500LK for E 13,00 I would like to include those too...

 

[Shootar401]

I gave up 35mm after shooting MF with my RZ. Will I ever go back to 35mm? Probably not.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

I gave up 35mm after shooting MF with my RZ. Will I ever go back to 35mm? Probably not.

Funny. For me it's the exact opposite. 35mm looks better to my eye the more I use it, and medium format is the camera I could spare if I had to.

 

[eddie]

I own everything from half frame to 8x10. I try to use the best tool for the job. But, sometimes, I try to come up with the best job for the tool. I'll try to figure out what a specific format can do which others can not (at least as easily). As an example, multiple half frame images can be printed together in a 4x5 (or 5x7) negative carrier. I'll shoot consecutive frames I want printed as a single image. Here's an example (it's 4 consecutive half frame exposures, printed on watercolor paper and hand painted):


Lately, though, I've been using my two Fuji 6x9's the most, but they're the newest. I really like the 6x9 negative.

 

[narsuitus]

Where does Medium Format Fit in?

Over my lifetime, I have enjoyed using 35mm, 6x6cm, 6x7cm, 6x9cm, 4x5 inch, 8x10 inch, and 11x14 inch film cameras. Presently, I primarily use 35mm, 6x7, and 6x9. However, if I were forced to use only one camera format, I would choose medium format because it is a good compromise between small format film and large format film.

Even though I have never used a 645 medium format camera, the 645 would be my choice because I think it would give me the features my small format cameras give me for action, macro, and close-up subjects. It would also give me something closer to the image quality my large format cameras give me but I can never get from small format film.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/11336821@N00/8135993200/

 

[Poisson Du Jour]

I gave up 35mm after shooting MF with my RZ. Will I ever go back to 35mm? Probably not.

My feelings, too, exactly. BUT, I do use 35mm for star trails as my big 6x7 is not a power-less bulb hulk. I'm working on a trick to use it (Pentax 67) for night skies photography without the battery, but until my Eureka! moment, I'll continue to be using 35mm for this purpose among other ad hoc jobs, just to keep my foundation memories of photography with that format chugging along.

 

[Dr Croubie]

My feelings, too, exactly. BUT, I do use 35mm for star trails as my big 6x7 is not a power-less bulb hulk. I'm working on a trick to use it (Pentax 67) for night skies photography without the battery, but until my Eureka! moment, I'll continue to be using 35mm for this purpose among other ad hoc jobs, just to keep my foundation memories of photography with that format chugging along.

Use a leaf-shutter lens, focus, lock the mirror up, open the body shutter, take the battery out. Then just use the leaf shutter on a cable release.
(of course, that's me having never used a P67, does the shutter stay open when the battery's removed, or is it spring loaded?)

 

[dorff]

Well, I suppose one can ask where ANY format fits into one's own view of the craft, for that matter. If you do not use the range of medium formats, then you can answer that question more definitively than many of the rest of us can. In my own situation the conclusion is different. I have found that with a small darkroom and low ceiling height, a 6x4.5 negative strikes a good balance of quality and convenience/printability. I use Mamiya AFD-II and Pro TL cameras, and along with their respective lenses they meet my needs very well. I also use Pentax 6x7 (and own but rarely use Mamiya RZ + lenses), and that gives me a good sized negative for scanning colour images. I love using colour negative film, for some reason, with the Pentax. The smaller 6x4.5 is for me more strictly intended for darkroom printing and so I shoot only B/W with it nowadays. If I had the space and the money for LF enlargers and all that goes with using LF gear in the field, I would still think that the beauty of the 645 is the ability to take portraits and more spontaneous photographs while getting a neg that prints to 12"x16" with barely any grain visible. For 35mm to achieve that, it has to be really slow film and good, fast lenses that may cost quite a bit more. The practical side of using slower film is living with slow shutter speeds. So MF lives nicely in the bracket where better than 35 mm quality is desired coupled with better than LF handling. Every way in which film can be made or developed better for the sake of 35 mm applies equally to the larger formats. But the handling and ergonomics issues with LF are what they are, unfortunately. While you may have very exacting standards to which you work, mine may be looser, and so I haven't missed LF that much. Incidentally I own two 4x5s but I just haven't figured out how to practically put them to good use yet, and I need to also spend a bit of effort on their physical condition, accessories etc. Maybe I will get to that sooner than I think, and then maybe I may find myself where you are now, who knows.

 

[waynecrider]

I think alot of us hobbyist & enthusiasts only need what satisfies the pleasure centers of our brains, and that craving will always change. If one can make a case for a certain camera or format because of this or that, it's generally a self willed desire. Pro's on the other hand obviously need the right tool that accomplishes the task with a minimum of effort/ability to satisfy a clients needs or their own production for sales.

95% of my stuff is on the computer. The rest sits in a drawer comprising negs or prints and there is only a handful of images on my wall. I email images to my friends and family that I have taken. What the hell do I need a 4x5 or 6x6 for? One day I"ll get a Jones for a different format, buy it, and nothing else will change except what neg pages I need. If it ain't useful sell it and buy oil stock.

 

[DannL]

I use various cameras, changing from one type to another almost as often as the wind changes direction. I may carry 35mm today, and use a 4x5 tonight. Tomorrow I might use a TLR, and carry a 4x5 or 35mm camera as a sidekick. The aesthetic of a print is in large part dependent upon the camera equipment I use. I enjoy that variety, and I also enjoy using different types of cameras and film.

 

[Truzi]

I mainly use 35mm, but have always wanted medium format (the Holga just wasn't doing it for me) and 4x5. Photos are my memories, and I find 35mm perfect for that purpose, especially on vacations. Most of my photography is snapshots.

Now that I have a good medium format camera (Bronica GS-1), it's place for me is portraits, and for photos that are very deliberate (or to enlarge for display purposes).
Either format can deliver what I want, but when I'm running around taking random pictures, the 35mm fits better. Medium format is for when I have more time. Although the quality of such a large negative is clearly an advantage, it's not large enough to supplant my 35mm for most of what I do.

The sad thing is, when I finally get a Super Graphic, there is a risk that most of my snapshots will be on 4x5 - I'm funny that way.

 

[wy2l]

Because Medium Format is like Goldilocks... not too big, not too small.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

I've been in and out of medium format, like many folks here. I've gotten back in love with it through my Rolleiflex, to the point I now have a pair of them. They have their limitations of course, but what keeps me in love with them is the just-rightness of them - the Rollei makes a perfect street photography camera because it's silent, unobtrusive in use, it's compact (for medium format), and the 12 exposures is just enough to finish an idea when photographing, instead of having several ideas to work out on a 36 exposure roll, and by the time you're done, you've forgotten the why of half the photos on the roll. The quality up to a certain size is really quite similar to what you get from large format, enough so that any print I want to make that I can make at home is more than good enough. Don't get me wrong, there are plenty of things medium format cameras can't do, or at least can't do as well or as much as large format cameras can (perspective control, depth-of-field control, etc). And no medium format camera in the world is going to hold a candle to a contact print from my 14x17, but I'm not going to use it in the same circumstances I'd use the Rollei either.

 

[Poisson Du Jour]

Use a leaf-shutter lens, focus, lock the mirror up, open the body shutter, take the battery out. Then just use the leaf shutter on a cable release.
(of course, that's me having never used a P67, does the shutter stay open when the battery's removed, or is it spring loaded?)

lol! Sounds good, doc. In practice though, fraught with confusion and difficulty. A literal fumblefest.

• Shutter will remain open once triggered, and when battery is removed; requires reset with mirror lock-up reset button (front of 67) before re-inserting battery, then wind on. This is clumsy. I am studying a workaround involving triggering the camera with the mirror lock-up reset button, then shutter.
• Neither of the 67 leaf shutter tele lenses are suitable for star trails really (way too long; ultra-wide angles are the go).
• Mirror lock-up is not useable with the 165mm LS; some souls have tried it. The mirror jams.

 

[k_jupiter]

EASmithV,

Yes, I have in the past balanced all from 135 to 8x10. The secret was to standardize the post process. Kits of course are different but not much. As the format got larger, your requirements for sturdier tripods and light meters increased. Once you set up a kit though, you just need to do a 'day of shoot' edit to determine what you need for a particular assignment. Not brain surgery.

That said, the trusty Nikon Fm2 sits on a shelf most trips these days. My days of HCB inspiration are long over. If I just need an image, the Fuji Digital will do the trick a lot faster than the Nikon with little or any decay in image quality. Only issue is freaking shutter trip delay.
As far as MF, I have spent a lot of time and a lot of miles all over the country with the weight of my rb on my shoulder, with some spectacular days in the US South West, Paris France, the lowlands of Europe, the Pacific coast, River Road Plantations in Louisiana, etc... But... my style of shooting has changed. When I go out for images these days, the setup for MF isn't that much easier than LF. Still need a tripod, still need a meter. As such, my drive has been towards utilizing my LF (4x5 - 8x10) equipment. The end result justifies the exertion. As I get older, I look around and realize after I am gone, having 7000 unprinted MF negatives makes no sense.

300 or 400 LF negatives that please me so much more is all the reward I am ever going to have and frankly, all I need. So I now concentrate on keeping the Deardorff tuned up, mounting a few more process lenses, and actually getting out. The Mamiya still sits around for the day I change my mind.
Good luck on your search.

tim in san jose

 

[BradS]

A couple of years ago, I set a goal for myself - reduce my gear to two or three 4x5 cameras and a handful of lenses. I never quite achieved that goal but, I did get rid of most all of my excess and I do really only use three 4x5 cameras anymore (even though that leaves a few to collect dust.). I recently bought a nice 645 camera and it has replaced all small and medium format gear.

Here's the thing...before I slimmed down, I had too many choices...and it was often more than a little paralyzing.

It may seem counter intuitive but, having fewer gear choices really is liberating.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

A couple of years ago, I set a goal for myself - reduce my gear to two or three 4x5 cameras and a handful of lenses. I never quite achieved that goal but, I did get rid of most all of my excess and I do really only use three 4x5 cameras anymore (even though that leaves a few to collect dust.). I recently bought a nice 645 camera and it has replaced all small and medium format gear.

Here's the thing...before I slimmed down, I had too many choices...and it was often more than a little paralyzing.

It may seem counter intuitive but, having fewer gear choices really is liberating.

That's the beauty of the Rollei, to me... the only choice is to take it or not. Everything else is simplicity and it forces you to concentrate on taking the photo, not fiddling with formats or lenses. I feel like it has clarified a lot of my photography for me and made me a better photographer because it makes me think about each image. Don't get me wrong there is definitely a place for having choices. But I feel like now if I were told I had to give up all my cameras but one, I could be happier with that decision now.

 

[ac12]

For me it is about selecting the right tool for the job; 35mm, MF, LF, digital.
I was recently on a LF outing. The 4x5 monorail + tripod was TOO HEAVY to lug around, I was exhausted before the end of the day, and because I was tired, I did not shoot as much as I would have. And being middle-age does not help. I cannot lug around what I used to easily lug around when I was younger. So next time, if it will be significant walking distance from the car, unless I have a cart/wagon, I'm taking the MF and NOT the LF camera. My 4x5 is now restricted to the home studio or a reasonably short distance from the car.

A MF 6x6 or 6x9 would be my idea of a the biggest camera that I would walk about with.

 

[gone]

I find that my shots with 35mm have a totally different "look" than MF. Or, I get shots w/ 35mm that are impossible to get w/ a larger, slower camera. Maybe it would be different if I had a fast MF camera w/ AF and AE, but since I prefer the look of older German glass that isn't going to happen. My Leica R 90 lens gives me IQ that is at least as good as MF, probably better in many instances. The extra reach, and small size of the Nikon camera that it's on, means you get shots that would not be possible w/ a Rolleicord or MF folder. Of course, 6x6 negs are a lot easier to work with in a darkroom, and you can get far bigger enlargements. That's probably the priority of MF vs 35mm. How big are you going to enlarge your photos, and does grain bother you in those enlargements?

 

[schewct]

For me, i currently uses both 35mm and Medium Format. One for fast shooting and the other for normal shoot. If I have a Crown Graphic or a Speed Graphic which is as portable as Medium Format cameras, i will probably give up Medium Format. =D