Why do you shoot medium format?

[ChrisBCS]

Why not just go all the way to 4x5? Is MF really that much of an improvement over 135? Just meant to be a discussion thread to gather your personal perspectives.

 

[E. von Hoegh]

Why not just go all the way to 4x5? Is MF really that much of an improvement over 135? Just meant to be a discussion thread to gather your personal perspectives.

The step up from miniature to medium format is a dramatic increase in quality, the step from Mf to 4x5 less so - but is till a large increase in cost. Also my Rollei weighs about 1/4 what my Linhof does, although I can use a 6x7 back on the L and have MF with perspective controls. Also, I really like the Rollei.

 

[chassis]

Why not just go all the way to 4x5? I do. Mostly for my own work, and selected client work. Using a view camera is a significantly different process than using an SLR or TLR.

Is MF really that much of an improvement over 135? Yes, because of larger negative size (I shoot 6x7) and generally higher quality lenses.

 

[Paul Howell]

Size, weight, mid point between 35 and 4X5. Although I can shoot with either a Crown or Speed handheld, much easier with a 6X9 folder, Mamyia Press or 6X6 or 6X7, or TLR. I do get great negatives with 35mm, use ISO 100, but with a larger format I can as good or better resolution using faster film.

 

[wiltw]

When I was doing professional work, I shot MF for events and portraiture, with selection of 4x5 monorail primarily for product photography. Portability and variety of FL is a major criteria to equipment selection suitability; 4x5 loses easily on this point.
As for expense:

• Every 4x5 shot is spending 4.6x in film area and film processing expense compared to 645, and 12.9x as much film area and film processing cost as 135 format.
• Every 645 format shot is 2.8x in film area and film processing cost compared to 135 format.

 

[NB23]

I shoot MF to channel my inner DOISNEAU.

 

[removed account4]

Why not just go all the way to 4x5? Is MF really that
much of an improvement over 135? Just meant to be a discussion thread to gather your personal perspectives.

hi chrisbcs:
i use the roll back on a 4x5 camera, i don't have a dedicated MF camera
except for a box camera. it is convenient not having to bring film holders or a bag mag
loading and unloading / processing sheet film.
30+ years ago i had a yashica 124 mat g and more recently a post war mamiya 6 folder+ graflex b.
i never saw a quality jump between 35mm and 120. it was probably there, but that doesn't
really matter to me ... it wasn't a negative-quality "thing" that made me use a MF
camera, it was just the experience of using a different camera. i get bored
so i get something, buy 300 rolls of expired film and use it until i run out of film.
then sell it, unless i run out of $$ the i sell it earlier.

why not just to directly to 4x5?
i have, and use a 4x5 camera too. i like LF more ( and the graflex b too ) you can put
cheap lenses on them and not make too much of an investment on optics. there are a lot
of great unloved lenses out there.

 

[markbarendt]

Why not just go all the way to 4x5? Is MF really that much of an improvement over 135? Just meant to be a discussion thread to gather your personal perspectives.

Simplicity, the MF cameras generally come out of the bag ready to use. 4x5 generally are tougher to setup.
Yes, MF really is a big step up in quality.
Viewfinder on RB67 for example is nicer to use IMO than 135 or LF.
Roll film rather than sheet.
Interchangeable film backs
...

 

[DWThomas]

A few years back I referred to MF as the "Goldilocks format" -- not too big, not too small, ju-s-s-st right!

To go 4x5 gets into higher film and processing expense, and to my thinking, more cumbersome gear to schlepp around. There is not much gained for me, as a hobbyist, making that move. I actually own a B&J Press 4x5, should I have a sudden uncontrollable urge, but I currently lack an enlarger, so it would be scans or contact prints. I switch around between an SLR (Bronica), TLR (Yashica) and 6x6 and 6x9 folders, depending on my whim of the moment.

 

[Alan Gales]

Why not just go all the way to 4x5? Is MF really that much of an improvement over 135? Just meant to be a discussion thread to gather your personal perspectives.

That is a very good question, Chris.

Ever try to shoot a 4x5 like a Crown Graphic hand held? They are big and heavy and hard to hold steady especially for someone like me who has a bad back. I can get better results shooting a medium format camera hand held.

You should really try 4x5 though. Buy a dirt cheap monorail with a 210mm lens and 5 used film holders to start (so you can load an entire box of 10 negatives). Use an oversized black sweatshirt as a darkcloth and a pair of cheap readers from the drugstore as a loupe. You can scan at first or contact print but 4x5 enlargers go really cheap.

I presently own an 8x10 with both 8x10 and 4x5 backs. I also own a Mamiya C220f and a newly acquired Minolta Autocord. Just don't do like I did and sell your medium format gear when starting 4x5. I did this and ended up wanting to shoot both large and medium format.

 

[Paul Howell]

That is a very good question, Chris.

Ever try to shoot a 4x5 like a Crown Graphic hand held? They are big and heavy and hard to hold steady especially for someone like me who has a bad back. I can get better results shooting a medium format camera hand held.

My Crown is lighter than my Mamyia Universal with 6X9 back, I don't have any physical issues that prevent me from lugging around my 4X5 gear, with my Crown I use a monopod ISO 400 film with good results. On the other hand my Kodak Tourister is lighter than my Crown. In my case I don't think MF replaces MF and MF does not replace 4X5.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Why not just go all the way to 4x5? Is MF really that much of an improvement over 135? Just meant to be a discussion thread to gather your personal perspectives.

My important work is done in MF. I shoot 35mm when I must photograph quickly and minimize the equipment volume. I do shoot 4'x5" hand held.

 

[Alan Gales]

Yeah Paul, it does depend upon the medium format camera. I used to shoot an RZ67 but almost always used a tripod. It's a big and heavy camera. My C220f is as light as a Hasselblad and my Autocord is even lighter. Some do enjoy shooting 4x5 hand held. I don't recommend it but of course that is just my opinion. I find 4x5 film expensive for shooting hand held.

I agree with you that I like both large and medium formats and they each have their place with me.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I have trouble remembering when I used a tripod for MF. That is because one can carry around a Hasselblad and not get a groin pull when using it. In fact I cannot remember the last time I used a tripod with my Pacemaker Speed Graphic nor the Graflex Model D, both 4"x5" and used hand held.

 

[Vaughn]

Because 6x6 platinum prints are really cool. (Rolleiflex)

 

[RattyMouse]

Why not just go all the way to 4x5? Is MF really that much of an improvement over 135? Just meant to be a discussion thread to gather your personal perspectives.

Going from 35mm to 6 x 7 is a massive, massive increase in quality. It's an enormous jump. Further, if you buy the right cameras, 6 x 7 is almost as portable as 35mm. My Fuji GF rangefinders travel with me all over the world. I am very happy to shoot a 44mm and 27 mm eq. focal length. If I need something dramatically different, then I switch back to 35mm. 80% or more of my photography has been 6 x 7 MF film.

 

[ruilourosa]

"cause"

 

[mklw1954]

Image quality, even for 645 (Pentax 645, original manual focus version) and 6x6 (Yashica Mat 124), is much better than for 135. I would not consider large format because of the hard-to-find and massive enlargers required.

But each format has its own strengths so I don't know why people want to use just one. I also do 135.

 

[papagene]

I photograph using MF, 4x5 & 5x7 cameras. I haven't shot 35mm in many years, just not interested. Outside of my cameras delivering excellent results, the main reason I pick up a particular camera is because I enjoy photographing with it. That's the bottom line, if photography isn't fun I wouldn't be doing it.

 

[RichardJack]

Only for fun now. My digital produces better results. Usually B&W so I have an excuse to use my darkroom.

 

[MattKing]

I would have great difficulty handling 4x5 or larger sheet film. It really is a two handed operation for most things, and I am sort of single handed (plus a bit).
And that single hand is my left hand.
I've got medium format (and 35mm) cameras that work for me. And the largest - the RB67 - gives me negatives on modern films that rival the quality I might have obtained 40 years ago from 4x5. The only thing that I really miss is movements.

 

[tomfrh]

Yes medium is a big jump over 35mm. you can print twice as big.

4x5 is too much hassle.

 

[mooseontheloose]

If I shot still lifes or primarily landscapes or even portraits I would probably shoot 4x5, but since most of my photography requires a lightweight, portable set-up (since I travel a lot and/or shoot in cities) MF is much more to my liking. I also shoot 35mm when I need something even faster or for the lenses (more wide, tele, etc).

 

[Cholentpot]

Because I love saying '120'

 

[jspillane]

Why not just go all the way to 4x5? Is MF really that much of an improvement over 135? Just meant to be a discussion thread to gather your personal perspectives.

One might just as easily say: why not go all the way to 8x10? or 11x14? etc... 4x5 is not some magical pinnacle of quality, there is a whole spectrum above it.

35mm is great for certain things (high frame rates, autofocus, exotic focal lengths, etc.). MF is great for lots of other things (large print sizes, different visual rendering, finer detail and lower grain). LF is great for tons of things as well, but you take a large usability hit moving from MF to LF (much larger than the move from 35mm to MF in my opinion).

For me, medium format (6x6 specifically) is my favorite for general use, travel and most studio photography. If I need a special look, movements, or super high resolution moving to 4x5 or 8x10 makes sense. But its rarely necessary... and you need a huge enlarger and workspace to get optimal prints from LF. Nothing like 8x10 contact prints to stir the soul, but I wouldn't want to (or be able to) carry one with me on a long trip, or afford to make the number of exposures that I tend to need to in a portrait session.