Why did you choose MF?

cao · Jan 30, 2005

Typo

Mongo said:
Before you write off the idea of an RB67.

That's not what I meant. I have some near term projects requiring MF, and an RB with KL lenses is the best bang/buck combo for me at the moment. I just want to stay ahead of the game as my eyeballs turn to dust.

I'm just interested in others' experience with aftermarket bright screens. If good, I might even put them in my Spotties.

Richard Wasserman · Jan 30, 2005

I highly reccommend Maxwell screens, they are bright and very easy to focus. I have them in 2 4x5 cameras and a Rollie and can't imagine any others being better, although they might be less expensive. I'm saving my pennies for an 8x10 screen for a camera I just bought.

eagleowl · Jan 31, 2005

I've got...

...a 6x6 tlr.
The main reasons I wanted it was the bigger negative,and the fact that it was a cheap way into mf.
Now,my reasons have increased somewhat-to include the very reasons why I was so reluctant to buy it originally.
They are:
Limited number of lenses:I own a Mamiya C33 and C330-there are a total of
7 lenses available-having used it,I now realise
that actually INCREASES my creativity,as I just
don't have the perfect lens for everything,so I have
to plan the shot better.
No built in light meter: the cheap handheld meter I bought is more accurate
than any built in meter I've ever used!
Everything's manual: slows me down and makes me think about the
shot more.

So basically,buying this heavy and limited camera was probably did the best thing that's happened to my photography-EVER!

arigram · Jan 31, 2005

I don't want to sound repetitive as I have posted my opinion on Hasselblad a few times in the past, Pamela you can check some other threads I started with that camera in focus.
In short, my Hasselblad 501CM was a Christmas gift. It came inside a shoe box and was the biggest surprise in my life! It was just after that I wanted to do something with photography, even a masters on it.
After playing with it with no film, I travelled to Athens and purchased a Gossen Sixtomat Digital lightmeter and a Manfrotto tripod.
I have written before what I love about it.
The looks, the feel on my hand, the way it works.
Its versatillity is incredible. You can shoot handheld even in the most crowded and crazy occusions or you can glue it to a tripod to get LF-like images with amazing sharpness and creamy tonallity.
Since I started using the square I can't go back to rectangles.
It feels right for me, I think less when I compose and I love the square look. Plus it makes your photos stand out from the common rectangle.
So far I have had an one lens-one back set up and the 80mm is absolutely fine for the vast majority of my photographs, but I found out I could make use of a wide angle to get the distorted perspective and shoot in tight spaces. What I would love to have would be the 120 macro with a couple extension tubes or the bellows for close ups which I would use a lot.
I also found out that I could use atleast a second back so I can go out with a "slow" film and a "fast" one so I won't miss any opportunity.
It funny but after coming from 35mm, even 12 shots on a roll sometimes are too many!

I will agree with Les though that it is way over priced.
With my current paycheck I can only hope to buy a new lens in a few years unless I find another way.
It is a common practice in capitalism to pay lots just for a name.

ooze · Jan 31, 2005

Pamela, what do you like to shoot most? You said you are going into the rainforest. Will you come into contact with any tribes? Or do you intend to shoot forestscapes?

If I go for a long walk in the forest or on the coast with the intention of landscapes only, then I take my Hasselblad and an 80mm lens and a tripod. Prints from the larger negative are from a purely technical point of view just so much better than those from 35mm. With the Hassy you also have depth of field preview which is lacking in a rangefinder or TLR.

For anything that could involve people - and that's what most of my photography is about - I prefer to have a silent shutter (a Hassy is loud) and unobtrusive looking cameras; that's when I use a Rolleiflex TLR (together with a Leica M6 + 35 and 50mm lenses). I could have chosen a Mamiya rangefinder as the MF camera but their lenses only open up to f4 whereas the Rollei is f2.8.

Lee Shively · Jan 31, 2005

Like virtually everyone else here, I use medium format for the negative size. I really came to appreciate this when I printed some 20-30 year old negatives done on a Mamiya TLR and compared the prints to those done recently on a Leica rangefinder. No contest--size won.

Interchangeable backs. It's important to some people but not to me. My favorite MF camera is the Pentax 645 which doesn't have interchangeable backs. The fact is, used original P645 bodies sell for about the same or less than equivalent used Hasselblad backs alone. If I ever do find myself in need of using different films at the same time, I'll just buy another body or two.

Max Power · Jan 31, 2005

I use my Minolta 35mm kit an awful lot. I have some really good lenses and the flexibility and speed it gives me (with an autowinder) is wonderful. It does the designated job beautifully.

Upon joining APUG, however, everyone was shouting the marvels of MF, so I decided to give it a whirl. I first bought a Rolleicord, and was disappointed with the results, but I could immediately see the potential of the 6x6 negative, especially when using slow film and a tripod.

Unhappy with the 'cord, I went out and got a C220. The quality of the images from that first roll of FP4 blew me away. I don't find it particularly heavy, and really like the ability to change lens sets...And they are really inexpensive. As with many others in this thread, what I like is the slow, deliberate composition algorithm which goes with each shot.

Cheers,
Kent

hurdy_gurdyman · Feb 1, 2005

Max Power said:
I use my Minolta 35mm kit an awful lot. I have some really good lenses and the flexibility and speed it gives me (with an autowinder) is wonderful. It does the designated job beautifully.

Upon joining APUG, however, everyone was shouting the marvels of MF, so I decided to give it a whirl. I first bought a Rolleicord, and was disappointed with the results, but I could immediately see the potential of the 6x6 negative, especially when using slow film and a tripod.

Unhappy with the 'cord, I went out and got a C220. The quality of the images from that first roll of FP4 blew me away. I don't find it particularly heavy, and really like the ability to change lens sets...And they are really inexpensive. As with many others in this thread, what I like is the slow, deliberate composition algorithm which goes with each shot.

Cheers,
Kent

Personally, I think the C220 may be the best deal these days in used medium format. Great camera selling CHEAP these days.

Dave

Ara Ghajanian · Feb 2, 2005

When I was majoring in Photo back in the late eighties, no one in the department had even considered using a medium format camera much less owning one. My best friend and I decided to go purchase one each. I got a Mamiya RB67 and he got a Hasselblad 500C/M. The other students were blown away by the 16x20 enlargements we made (no one went over 11x14 before this in the department). A few students tried to print at that size after we did, but they ended up having prints with grain the size of golf balls (most people were using Pentax K1000 as the professor would recommend. No Leicas!). No one could understand the concept of the larger negative. I would say that is the main reason I bought one. The interchangable backs and the revolving back concept were things that I realized were benefits after I bought the camera. The price of lenses back then was the major drawback. Another plus is the fact that you don't have to shoot 24 or 36 exposures to finish a roll.

estrellita · Feb 2, 2005

For me it was the work of the photographers I admired who shot MF...Diane Arbus, MEM, Meatyard, Harry Callahan....

I was also looking to work with a bigger negative.

And I love the square.

André E.C. · May 11, 2005

Image quality and flexibility!

Cheers

André

Ole · May 11, 2005

Bigger negative, no worries about grain, fewer (!) images per film, slower working - can you tell I was heading towards LF?

jazzmechanic · May 11, 2005

Hi Pam, just wanted to throw my $.02 in. I took a B&W photo class with a wonderful teacher who allowed us to take a couple shots with the shop's Mamiya 645 and RB 67. After seeing my first attempts develop before my eyes in the darkroom, I was hooked. Now three months later, I have two Mamiya 645 1000s and a RB 67. Being still new to the medium format culture ( I cannot say MF around my teacher), I appreciate the big negatives. I shoot digital and 35mm as well but at the momnet my interests are with the MFs..oops did I say that, I mean medium formats.

NikoSperi · May 12, 2005

Because that *kerclunk-fwop* sound the mirror and curtain make is orgasmic!

Oh... and the prints aren't too shabby either.

colrehogan · May 12, 2005

I have to agree with Ole on this one.

Glenn Mathison · May 12, 2005

It's not only the negs...

Agree with all previous posts re negs. Enough said.

What *really* impressed me was the build quality of the MF equipment. Prior to MF I used Nikon 35mm gear, which used to be built really well. A couple of years back, my wife bought me a F65, and two lens combo (Consumer grade cost and build quality) which was lovely of her, but: many AF lenses now in 35mm have such a small focus ring it's hard to use easily. The focus rotation is very small to help the AF, so again manual focus doesn't "feel" right, and at least in these consumer grade lenses, the amount of slop in the focus gears etc is frightening. I could have gone to full pro quality lenses to negate some of these cost/quaility effects but as I photograph for a hobby only, I simply could not afford top of the line lenses.

I luckily came across a used Yashica TLR as my entry into MF and the very first roll blew me away. Then I picked up a mamiya 645 and the build quality of the body and lenses (even after 20 years) is superb. They are just SO much nicer to hold and use than any of the 35mm kit ever was. Have never used Hassy or other MF but I'm sure they have the same feeling of quality.

So I usually prefer to use my MF kit these days as my first choice, but still also enjoy my 35 mm cameras as well.

Glenn

Marcus · Apr 14, 2006

Why MF??

I got into MF by buying, a few years ago, a Kodak Box Brownie & a Kodak No2 Folding Auotgraphic Brownie. £2 the lot!!

Both still work with excellent results. The size and quality of the negs are impressive. The fact that it slows me down and makes me think about what pictures I am taking is what, for me, photography is all about.

It helps me make better photo's - not snaps!!

Marcus

narsuitus · Apr 14, 2006

I love the handling and flexibility of a 35mm system; however, I have never really been satisfied with the detail in a 35mm image. Medium and large format give me the detail I want in a 16x20 or larger print.

Allen Friday · Apr 14, 2006

The initial post asked "Why DID you choose medium format?" The question implies that it is a choice made once and for all. I got into medium format for the same reasons that many listed above. But, I still use 35mm, large and ULF cameras. To me the interesting question is "Why DO you choose medium format?" Or another way of asking it, "How do you decide to carry the MF, instead of the 35 or LF?"

I base my decision on what I want from the final print, balanced against the practicality of using the camera. Many times, MF gives me the largest neg I can get practically. But, all choices as to format, camera type etc. have pluses and minues. For example, the medium format gear is not very good for photographing my son's soccer games. I would choose my 35 with a 80 to 400 zoom lens. It is also not that great for making large contact prints. If I want a 16x20 platinum print, the easiest way is to shoot 16x20. But, for certain purposes, the medium format rocks.

I use the MF gear for most of my travel, especially in cities. I can put a Mamiya 7 body and three lenses in a small shoulder bag. Using the 6x7 neg, I can get very good 11x14 prints and acceptable 16x20. I have traveled with 4x5 and 8x10, but it is a PITA, unless the trip is a specific photography related trip.

I also use MF in the studio. I bounce back and forth between LF, ULF and MF in the studio. The MF is quicker and more spontaneous than LF. But, not that great for contact prints. Its a trade off, one that each photographer has to make based on their preferences and needs.

hortense · Apr 14, 2006

I love MF because:
a. It's lighter
b. more people friendly/flexible.

Bob F. · Apr 14, 2006

Bigger negative than 35mm. More portable than 5x4. I've run 3 films through my 35mm Canon in the two years since buying my SQA...

Cheers, Bob.

Magnus W · Apr 14, 2006

I tried Pentax 6x7 and liked it a lot. For almost a year I looked around for a good -- but not too pricey -- second hand equipment, when suddenly one day my boss handed me a Hasselblad and told me that this here 'blad, plus a 60mm and a 150mm could be mine for a song and a dance. I looked over the stuff and wondered what was wrong with it. Nothing wrong, It was three or four years old, and had barely been used, and it was a mindbogglingly sweety deal. But foremost, the feeling when I first held it and took some dry shots ...
It felt totally at home in my hands. And the negatives ... wow.

So it was a combination. I clicked with the hardware; wonderful stuff that just molded itself to my hands, and also with the square format, and the experience of printing from these wonderful 6x6 negs.

-- MW

removed account4 · Apr 14, 2006

i mainly chose to shoot mf again after 16 of being without because i had a ton of roll film and i HATE roll film backs on a 4x5 camera. not portable, not easy, not fun, just slow and a pain in the neck ( unless the roll back is gaffer taped to the back of a graflex slr camera ) now it fits in my pocket and is a dream to use ( old mamiya rf ) .

AZLF · Apr 14, 2006

I have and use three different mf cameras. A Rolleicord 1V, A Mamiya C-3 and a Mamiya 645 (non-interchangeable back style). I use them when the shot I desire and the situation surrounding the shot indicates using mf. When the situation requires lf I use one of the three 4x5" cameras I own. When I'm shooting news type photographs I use 35mm. Of late when I'm shooting for fun I've been using a Yashica rangefinder or a Leica IIIa. I guess you could call me an occasional pro. I don't go looking for work but it seems to come my way on a regular basis.

All of this is possible because many of the "pro's" have dumped their film gear and gone to digital. The prices on really top notch film cameras is a fraction of what it was even five years ago. If you want to get into mf now is a REALLY good time to do so. For all of the reasons stated in previous posts. And just wait until you see your first Ektachrome mf or lf image on a light table.

ChrisC · Apr 16, 2006

I first got into it after being annoyed at the 'shoot millions of photos and hope something turns out' mentality I had shooting digital. I bought a cheap Yashica TLR, enjoyed it and bought a 4x5. Now I find that a mixture of too cumbersome, and myself almost too shy to take it out and use it.

I'm now kind of looking for something more portable and discreet to shoot with, that I can handhold, mostly to get myself out of this rut I'm in. I might turn back to the TLR, see if I like it and spring for one in better condition. Or try out 35mm, since I've never really seriously shot with it.

Why did you choose MF?

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency