Why did you choose MF?

[pgomena]

I first got into MF because I wanted a bigger negative than 35mm when I used to do newspaper work and occasionally needed to make a bigger image. I bought a Rollieflex because it was cheaper than getting into a Hasselblad system and it fit in my camera bag.

I still have the Rollei, and now have moved further into MF as LF is getting to be too much to carry very far. Arthritis is catching up with me. I find I can carry a Hasselblad kit with 3 lenses much more easily than a 4x5 and a bunch of lenses and other accessories and a big tripod. I figure the 'Blad will do 90% of what I need a camera to do for the type of work I'm doing.

Peter Gomena

 

[Michel Hardy-Vallée]

I got into MF because I liked the cool cameras: folders, TLRs, boxes. Nothing like your run of the mill 35mm SLRs.

Eventually I realised the negs were easy to print, full of details, and lots of texture on an average lens like the one on my Yashica TLR, or even the diminutive meniscus of my Brownie.

I still love 35mm because it gives pictures with a different look, but I'll be looking towards some serious investment into an MF system in about a year or so, probably a Mamiya TLR or a Rolleiflex.

 

[wfe]

I love the larger negatives, square format and have dreamed of owning a Hasselblad for twenty years before finally getting one.

 

[Mark Minard]

My 9th grade photo class had a Yashica-Mat 124... The first time I looked into that viewfinder I was hooked. The view was three-dimentional and moody somehow. Nothing at all like the SLR's I had used. I love TLR's...

 

[George Papantoniou]

When I started doing serious photography I took up 4x5. When I went pro, I bough a Hass ELM for the versatility and cheaper film. It worked fine. Then I bought a Rolleiflex and enjoyed the ease of use and portability (I don't really favour the interchangeable thingies theory when shooting personal work, although it is indispensable when doing pro work). I still use the 4x5 when doing serious pro work and certain personal projects that demand the quality and working precision offered. I still think that shooting one different sheet for every picture (even when not doing zone work) is better and neater, though. I dislike having roll film negs with 4-6 different shoots on one single roll... although having only 4-6 of them is much better that 12 or 18... (each shoot = 2-3 frames, because of bracketing and/or safety issues).

 

[Christopher Walrath]

Romance and a hand crank.

 

[dunetraveller]

I have been shooting cameras since I was old enough to hold one and press the button on a 110 instamatic. Medium Format was always a Holy Grail for me. It was the stuff of legend. A mystique. Big, beautiful images that look at times better than the scene in real life. Many many years later... right when I was ready to plunk down a big chunk 'o change on a Digital SLR system the bug finally hit me in the store and I grabbed for it. I still feel much more comfortable with 35mm, but I love the challenge to work in the larger format. I feel like a student again... relearning everything from a new perspective!

 

[DWThomas]

(Since this thread resurrected ...)

It's the Goldilocks Thing ... not too big, not too small, jus-s-st right!

I'm presently coming back to B&W and trying to turn the dark room into a darkroom. MF seemed the most reasonable combination of size vs cost, etc. I have a 4x5 B&J Press in usable condition, but when I hauled it out for Worldwide Pinhole Photo Day, I felt a bit of sticker shock purchasing a box of film. And since my darkroom space is not huge, an Omega B-8 works out better than a D-2 or some of the heavy duty 4x5 units.

I haven't done much with it yet, but I now own a working Bronica SQ-A and have developed some negatives. I like what I see! (Today was spent modifying my old Gossen Super Pilot to (hopefully) work with a silver oxide cell (vs mercury).)

The current fantasy is to produce some landscape and/or architectural shots at exhibition size with detail and resolution that is unlikely with 35mm.

DaveT

 

[Steve Smith]

My first camera was medium format. My father bought me an Agfa Isolette 6x6 folder when I was about eleven. I used it to to photograph my aunt's wedding and presented her with a set of pictures with most of the heads cut off!!

I then drifted into 35mm for a while first with an Edixa, then a Nikkormat followed by a Nikon FG which I still have together with a Nikon F601 which I bought last year (this was actually the camera which was used to photograph my own wedding). My father used to work semi-professionally as a wedding photographer and his employer did my wedding for free (a good price). I bought the camera from his family after he died.

After all this rambling I bought a Rolleicord V for a bargain price on ebay a couple of years ago and was hooked on the larger negatives - so much so that I later built a 5x4" camera and then bought a Bronica ETRS with 75mm lens and recently added the 50mm lens, speedgrip and plain prism to it.

I am currently looking at something simple to carry around on walks and I was interested in the Bronica RF645 - until I saw the price they were going for!

I may be interested in something like the Fuji gw670 but the fixed 90mm lens is not really wide enough for me. If I can find a 50-65mm lens and shutter in some kind of focussing mount which I can graft onto the body of an old 6x9 folder, I might make something myself. Anyone have any ideas?


Steve.

 

[narsuitus]

I may be interested in something like the Fuji gw670 but the fixed 90mm lens is not really wide enough for me. If I can find a 50-65mm lens and shutter in some kind of focussing mount which I can graft onto the body of an old 6x9 folder, I might make something myself. Anyone have any ideas?

Take a look at a Fuji GSW690 with a fixed 65mm lens.

 

[Aggie]

I wanted to print good 16x20 photos, and a 35mm resolution short falls were bugging the hell out of me. My photography prof at the time refused to even consider teaching me (he would others who asked him) how to use a 4x5. So I purchased a MF rangefinder (Mamiya 7II) against what he said I should do. He said it was best to stick with 35mm. Being a stubborn Dane, I just had to follow what I wanted to do. It was the need for a bigger and better negative that drove it all. I'm glad I did what I thought was best. The transition to MF for me was a piece of cake.

 

[Steve Smith]

Take a look at a Fuji GSW690 with a fixed 65mm lens.

Yes, that's definately one idea. My enlarger only goes up to 6x7 so that was guiding me a bit. If only they did a GSW670.

Or I could get another enlarger!


Steve.

 

[photogolf]

Medium Format, No Other Way!

I cannot say it any better that what has already been written but I can tell you IMHO, MF is he way to go! I do shoot with the "D" cameras but in my home studio, the only cameras that get mounted on my tripods are my Mamiya RB67, Mamiya 645 or the Bronica ETRSI. Not a pro, just a serious beginner, I shoot only B&W and love doing my own developing. Now if Ican convince my othet half, I will add a Hassy one day!

 

[MattKing]

Yes, that's definately one idea. My enlarger only goes up to 6x7 so that was guiding me a bit. If only they did a GSW670.

Or I could get another enlarger!


Steve.

Are you aware of these Steve:

Dead Link Removed

Matt

 

[Steve Smith]

Are you aware of these Steve:

Dead Link Removed

Matt

Yes, but the lens is 90mm which is a bit 'too standard' for me. I would prefer something wider - about 60mm. They do look nice though - I could still be tempted!

Steve.

 

[MattKing]

First MF - Kodak folder, using 616 film. It was big enough to contact print (I was 11, and my dad helped me set up my first darkroom).

Second MF - Mamiya C330. I was working in a camera store while going to university, and while we sold Hassleblad's regularly, I certainly couldn't justify one of those. But when it was quiet, I kept gravitating to that big beautiful Mamiya demonstrator that just didn't seem to be getting the attention from the customers that I thought it deserved. Then my boss made me an offer ....

Still have the C330, and my dad thinks he has found the folder, and I intend to reclaim it.

Matt

 

[Russ Young]

A camera is just a tool and has to work to solve the problem at hand. For me, the luscious tonality of MF prints is the best reason to use them. For non-professional use, the portability and expense are important criteria- keeping in mind "is is appropriate to the kind of image I want to create?"

I've owned Bronica (S2a), Hassleblad, Mamiya 7 and Six (folder), Pentax 4.5x6 and 6x7, and Yashica 124G plys a bunch of folders. The Bronica was the best buy, the Mamiya 7 has the best optics, the Pentax 6x7 is most versatile, the folders are the most fun. And photography should be FUN!

When I travel, the Mamiya 7 with a 150 lens and the late model folding Mamiya Six are my constant companions. If it's a car trip, the Pentax 6x7 system and the Mamiya Six are the sole cameras along...

Whatever, choose what feels right for you and brings you pleasure to use.

Russ
\

 

[PhotoBob]

Why Medium Format (MF)?

To some degree the choice of MF system might be considered in light of one's subject matter and budget.
I got into MF shortly after my daughter was born and I sure enjoy the quality of the images. Furthermore, when shooting vast expanses and landscapes, the MF is one of the ideal formats.
Details and high acutance are important to me most of the time so MF and 4x5 are important for my photography.
If cost is an issue you might consider cameras other the "H.." system which is pretty pricy, I prefer Mamiya...but of course, the final decision rests with the photographer.

 

[ineffablething]

My children.