Why do you shoot MF?

[keithwms]

A big attraction of MF, in my opinion, is that there is so much gear variety in this format. MF really tops 35mm and LF, when it comes to overall variety of gear. In MF you have SLRs, TLRs, RFs, view cameras... you name it.

 

[lbenac]

A big attraction of MF, in my opinion, is that there is so much gear variety in this format. MF really tops 35mm and LF, when it comes to overall variety of gear. In MF you have SLRs, TLRs, RFs, view cameras... you name it.

This is not a blessing, it is a curse
At least for an addict like myself and then there is never enough time to shoot all the different systems.

Cheers,

Luc

 

[flatulent1]

This is not a blessing, it is a curse

Yeah, I live that one daily.

Why do I shoot MF? I have to admit right now that I'm a gearhead and always have been. I was drawn to MF years ago when I first got started in photography; fortunately I couldn't afford anything beyond 35mm so that's what I got to play with.

Fast forward to the current decade. Look at the MF gear prices on ebay, or at KEH. Pretty freaking astounding the amount of quality gear you can get for peanuts. THAT is why I shoot MF; because I can. (Oh, yeah, the stuff about increased negative size and so forth... that too.)

 

[tkamiya]

I shoot digital for color and I shoot film for B&W simply because I like the result I get.

For B&W, I use both 35mm and MF. I shoot MF for several reasons. For one, I can actually evaluate the results looking at contact sheets. For two, I can get more details using higher ISO film. For three, I just can't let go of the fact I can buy a fully professional mega bucks camera for few hundred dollars. Above all reasons, I like the results.

My suggestion to OP is this. Forget technical details. MP, dynamic range, MTF, etc, etc, etc. Think what gives you the result you want - and use the equipment that gives you that result. We all get tied up in this what's superior game all too often. But in the end, it's the image we create that counts.

 

[cjbecker]

I am in the process of switching to all MF. I really like the size of the negative, I really don’t like messing with 135 negatives. I also really really like shooting in squares. I feel better about pushing 120 over 135, Even if 135 has faster lens. I also like how versatile MF systems are. They really can do anything you want. I like the build quality of the mf gear over all. MF makes me work better, 135 I will just shoot off. The Viewfinder of a small format camera can not get close to touching the quality or or the size of a hassy, or rollei, viewfinder. 645 is way better then 135, you can get a mamiya or a contax 645 with a f2 lens. Then you are only 1 stop difference then a normal 50 for a 135. The ratio of a 645 is also better then that of a 135. I make better pictures with mf.

Thats just to name a few.

 

[lbenac]

I am in the process of switching to all MF.I make better pictures with mf.

Likewise here. After my last trip, I had a look at my keepers from my P645 and from my 35mm (Pentax LX with good glass) and I decided that 645 was the smallest I really wanted to shoot. I am actually considering that my Fuji GW690 RF shooting 6x9 was my "street" camera to use with Tri-X @ 1250 in Diafine.

Cheers,

Luc

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

Depends on the camera. MF includes a range of possible things, as others have noted.

I like my Bronica SLR for less formal kinds of studio portraits.

I like the 2x3" Technika for situations where it's impractical to bring a large format camera. The kit is half the size of my 4x5" Technika.

There's no substitute for a medium format Noblex, if I want a high quality truly continuous swing-lens panorama, with the exception of a Cirkut, I suppose, but the Noblex negs can be enlarged in a 4x5" enlarger.

I shoot rollfilm on my 4x5" cameras occasionally for other reasons--My longest lens may not be long enough, or I may want the spontaneity and convenience or lower cost of rollfilm.

 

[thedancefloor]

120 contacts look really nice too.

 

[Jeff Kubach]

I just don't like the look of digital, simply put!

Jeff

 

[ntenny]

I grew up shooting 6x6, so it seems like the Right Thing to me. I really like the square format for composition, and I like the fact that it makes nice contacts. (Scans better than 35mm too, though of course I would never say that on APUG...oops.)

Also, TLRs are cool.

-NT

 

[clay]

Over the last ten years I have come to the conclusion that MF is truly the sweet spot in the trade off between quality and convenience.

 

[removed account4]

sometimes it is easier to use a roll of 8 or 12 than
24 or 36 or 1 sheet at at time.
i love the square and the 2x3 rectangle...

 

[sheremey]

With every format, you deal with a particular DOF+angle of view combinations of the lenses. With MF, the focal lengths of the lenses are just right for my perception of the image.

 

[Wade D]

I shoot MF because I like the bigger negative you get compared to 35mm. I have 35mm, 120 and 4x5 gear but the 120 cameras get the most use lately. Especially since I bought a pristine Agfa Isolette for my birthday last Nov. I stuff it in my pocket and take it practically everywhere I go. Not high tech but a lot of fun!

 

[Steve Smith]

There is no offense. The film/digital debate has been a very personal one with each side pushing their views, usually by distorting the parameters and making claim about what they think they see.

The problem with every web based film vs. digital debate is that the film samples are always scanned (they have to be to show them) so it very quickly becomes a digital vs. scanner debate as the scanner is always going to be the weakest link.


Steve.

 

[JPD]

I use my Rollei TLR:s because of the much better image quality than 35mm. Because I love the cameras, and because darkroom work is different and more fun than Photoshop. I like the feel of real silver prints, and to be able to hold the negatives in my hands. The film was there when I took the picture, and it's in the enlarger when I make the print. It feels more real than digital.

 

[Brandon D.]

To answer your question. There are definite advantages to a large piece of film . As you increase size, you start getting a relative increase in detail and a smoothing of tones. You are also working with shallower depth of field given equal aperture and angle of view. This adds to creaminess of the format.

[...] I shoot film for B&W simply because I like the result I get.

I just like to be square.

^^^ Precisely some of my main reasons.

Personally, I like the inherent tonality and latitude it provides for shooting in black and white. Even when using a scanner, images made from black and white 120 negatives seem to have more of a natural, film-like aesthetic to them. With DSLRs, you usually have to convert from color to black and white in digital post production which is an entirely different process than a chemically based workflow for film. I'd just rather start working on an image that's inherently optimized for black and white.

Plus, most films have their own unique appearance, and you can change the aesthetic of your work simply by switching films and developers. With DSLRs, you're limited to just one sensor per camera, and that limits your initial aesthetic.

Every piece of hardware has it's advantages and disadvantages. For me, it's not really about the all of the statistical comparisons. I just like the final result.

In a scanning workflow, the scanner is always the weakest link.

Well, like in any other workflow or endeavor, it's also important for everyone to remember that the skill and expertise of the craftsmen his/herself will make or break the final result.

 

[lxdude]

Anyway.... we don't talk about this sort of stuff here!
Steve.

What Steve is talking about in this statement is that APUG's sister site DPUG (the ugly sister ) is where scanning and such are discussed.

 

[lxdude]

I truly do enjoy shooting film, in fact prefer the look of film to a digital file,

There ya go, that's it!

 

[Slixtiesix]

"from the tests that I have seen, even 11 MP DSLRs out resolve MF"

Do not blindly trust tests you´ve seen on the internet! I´ve seen a lot of tests so far and many of them were flawed. One test suggested that a 6MP DSLR was able to challenge a 4x5 camera, whereas other tests indicated that 645 film holds up pretty well to a MF digital back.
I´ve made my own test recently: SL66 with 80/2,8, loaded with Velvia 100, scanned with Flextight X5 (resulting in a 50MP image) against the Nikon D300 of a friend. My camera outresolved the DSLR so drastically we had no reason to debate about the outcome. Maybe a full-frame sensor would come closer, we may check next time as he also has a D700. I have nothing against digital by the way. If there was an affordable 6x6 digital backs, I would buy it immediately, at least for colour work.

My reasons for shooting in medium format are:
1. I really like the waist level finder composing, or ground glass composing in general. It´s just magic.
2. Quality is significantly better than 35mm.
3. I like the depth of MF pictures. Sharpness of the glass combined with the shallow depth of field.
4. DSLRs have become quite common now, so using a 6x6 SLR gives me a feeling of individuality.

Of course all these points do also count for large format. I´ve played around with 4x5 in the past but found it to be slow and complicated, although I enjoyed the camera and its abilities very much. I´ve found medium format to be the best compromise between speed and image quality. (Though still dreaming of a Master Technika 2000 sometimes ;-) )

Best, Benjamin

PS: Unfortunately I´ve scratched the slide the scan I mentioned was taken from, and although I have the 50MP scan now, it just does not feel the same! Looking at a slide or a fibre base print is just different than looking at images on a screen ...

 

[Gaga]

I like the process of shooting with a Medium format camera, I can tinker around with the camera for a while before I press the shutter. It makes me think about the shot a lot more. I don't think resolution is everything.
I love the 6x6 format.

 

[bblhed]

I have lots of toys, a collection including Nikon SLR's and DSLRs, Point and shoot Digitals, and I have some MF cameras. I own a few folders, and a Pentax 6X7. 35mm is great for the daily photos, and the fun stuff, but for me MF is the way to go for Vacations, family gatherings, day trips, and anything else I want good photos of. I like the tones of the B&W, and I really like the colors better than 35mm. I am not alone in this, my wife who is less than supportive of MF because of the space a second set of equipment takes up if given the choice between two photos on the same type of film will pick a MF photo over a 35mm almost every time, even if they are almost identical. Also lets face it, the looks on peoples faces when you pull a roll of film out of the camera and lick it are priceless.

Resolution is bunk!

You can only squeeze so many pixels onto a sensor that the camera can read and that is the way it is, as Montgomery Scott said "You can't change the laws of Physics". I can't recall where I heard it, but I recall that a APR size sensor in a DSLR is at it's physical limit around 3.5 MP and all the rest is just software magic.

The same goes for film, you can only fit so many silver grains in a given area, but those silver grains do not have to talk back to a computer individually so they can be packed in a lot tighter than pixels that do have to talk to a computer.

 

[cny3123]

Once again, thanks all for the responses. Enlightening to see everyone else's points of view from across the world/internet

Does anyone else have any opinions on the Pentax 645 A/N vs the Mamiya Pro/ProTL's

 

[film_man]

You can only squeeze so many pixels onto a sensor that the camera can read and that is the way it is, as Montgomery Scott said "You can't change the laws of Physics". I can't recall where I heard it, but I recall that a APR size sensor in a DSLR is at it's physical limit around 3.5 MP and all the rest is just software magic.

The same goes for film, you can only fit so many silver grains in a given area, but those silver grains do not have to talk back to a computer individually so they can be packed in a lot tighter than pixels that do have to talk to a computer.

What you just said is like saying that miniaturised paper books can be packed more densely than ebooks in a Kindle, because ebooks have to be read by a computer while the miniature paper books can just be read with a magnifying glass.

Perhaps an APS size sensor was limited to 3.5MP in 1995 but that is not true any more. If you don't know or understand electronics and technology, no need to spread misinformation.

 

[Athiril]

We don't all scan. Most of us print from our negatives with enlargers. In a scanning workflow, the scanner is always the weakest link.

Anyway.... we don't talk about this sort of stuff here!


Steve.

Most people scan or get scans or get prints from minilab scans.

And it's not always the weakest link.