Why do you shoot MF?

Yeah, you can trigger some of the LS lenses externally, so then it's just an issue of setting a longer exposure or bulb or MLU on the body.

(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

N.b. I have an inexpensive ($40?) ebay adapter that allows me to attach mamiya 645 lenses to 35mm Nikon bodies. A 645 lens will simply have a slightly different film to flange distance and the lens needs to be spaced appropriately. I've even made a ghetto adapter just by glueing a body cap and rear lens cap together and drilling out a hole for the light. You don't need anything fancy like bellows if the 645 lens is helicoidal.

It's a complete mystery to me why there aren't plentiful LS lenses made specifically for 35mm. Fast synch is so useful! Anyway, LS lenses abound in MF and LF, of course.

cny3123 said:

What I have always done is stop down the aperture to f/11 or more during bright daylight situations. Or just shoot natural light with a fast shutter speed.

Click to expand...

Another skate photographer here! Although, not commercial. The classic way to get round the sync issue was always to re-compose to remove the sky entirely from the shot. I learnt this from Paul Duffy who used to shoot for Skateboard! Magazine in the '80s. Back then, a Hasselblad was pure fantasy and even a high sync (1/250) camera like the T90 or FM2 was a luxury few could afford. But also, the multiple flash shots which are de rigueur now were rare then (I think Jim Goodrich was the first in the late '70s). Digital has really blessed us and we no longer have to struggle with 1/60 sync in daylight! Also, there's a lot more money in skateboarding now...

Very cool! Do you have a site or anything I can check out ur stuff at?
I won't be able to check now however, on my way to the airport to croatia where ill be for a week.

cny3123 said:

Very cool! Do you have a site or anything I can check out ur stuff at?
I won't be able to check now however, on my way to the airport to croatia where ill be for a week.

Click to expand...

No, sorry, just prints at present.
Enjoy Croatia!

When I first got started in photography years ago in high school, I wanted to try my hand at MF, but at that point, MF gear was (to me anyway) way out of reach in terms of cost, not to mention, my high school's curriculum for photography was geared to 35mm, and I could only vary from that so much. Now good used gear has become affordable, and I've been able to migrate to MF. For me, it's not so much about proving that MF film is "better" than digital, as I think they both have their place, but about working with the limitations and advantages of the format.

As for specific cameras, I was able to pick up a Pentax 645 (non-AF) for $300 from eBay, in excellent shape, and I've really enjoyed it; that said, there's nothing wrong with the Mamiya 645, either. Now that I have a 6x7 and 6x4.5, I'd really like to move into 6x6 as well, which would probably mean rationalizing a Hasselblad to my ever-patient wife...which means I may stick with the Pentaxes for a while.

Larger negative. I also like the square format.

A 4x larger neg and a camera that barely is larger or heavier than 35mm SLR's.....that's why.

Higher IQ than 35mm, tolerable handling, and because I enjoy the analog process.

No *logical* reason (when does "logic" matter in art?).

I use medium format because I like it better.

PaulMD said:

Higher IQ than 35mm, tolerable handling, and because I enjoy the analog process.

Click to expand...

Hey, it's the same emulsion! It's not that much smarter.

^^^ lol, but a larger negative does mean finer gradations are possible

Oh, I forgot one other thing - not only are the lens resolution requirements more modest, but scanning is easier. Compare a super sharp 35mm negative (say 80 lp/mm) and the same data on a 6x6 negative (~21 lp/mm). You'll have to get a drum scan to get all the info off the 35mm neg, whereas a decent flatbed should be able to get most of the info off the MF neg. That's a pretty major practical advantage if you want a hybrid digital workflow. All right APUG, commence flaming.

Actually...

PaulMD said:

Oh, I forgot one other thing - not only are the lens resolution requirements more modest, but scanning is easier. Compare a super sharp 35mm negative (say 80 lp/mm) and the same data on a 6x6 negative (~21 lp/mm). You'll have to get a drum scan to get all the info off the 35mm neg, whereas a decent flatbed should be able to get most of the info off the MF neg. That's a pretty major practical advantage if you want a hybrid digital workflow. All right APUG, commence flaming.

Click to expand...

Actually, this is one of the reasons I decided to go all out medium format. 35mm is great and can be compact, but I found the 35mm scans lacking that "punch" that I was able to achieve with my Pentax 645.

Especially with Ilford Delta 3200 film! Much more detail retention and less grain for 120 format. Just a totally different look from 35mm.

I don't think my Epson 4490 can get very highly detailed scans from my 35mm negs, but I can start crashing my newer computer with the amount of detail I can get from 120 film negs... should I choose to scan at ridiculous dpi

In MF I have used Rolleiflex T (loved that machine), but sold it to fund the Mamiya 6 with all 3 lenses (can deliver amazing slides, but the process not so enjoy full as it was with the T ). For me the MF is the best compromise between compatibility/portability and IQ. I have recently visited Car show in Geneva. I used the Mamiya exclusively. I did hope to have faster lens at times, but mostly because that I had mostly ISO 100 films along. I still get MF SLR itch at times (Contax 645 or Pentax 6x7II), but I keep telling myself that those guys would often stay home because of the size and weight.

I know that resolution-wise there are cameras out there that out-do MF film, but are pricey and the results mostly look .. well .. digital (I can not afford high end digital backs).

I also use 4x5 but this needs much more time and for many subjects it is not feasible to use it, at least for me. I got to use it very little in last moths. I may decide to "step down" if the situation does not improve ... (would be a sad day though)

In 35mm format I have actually never had modern optics, but as I like to shoot landscapes, cityscapes and such and print it A3+ the MF really makes the difference. On the other hand 35mm can give some really nice gritty images with 400 ISO BW films. For me 35mm format is a camera that allows me to be able to take camera for snapshots, travel and going to places/occasions where the Mamiya 6 would be too slow/heavy/slow (lenses). I have Konica Auto S3 right now (though needs a repair after an accident), but with the recent advance in compact digital cameras with large sensors, I am not sure which way to go. Contax T3, or the G2, or Hexar AF are all fine cameras. But as I just prefer the way film looks, I will probably stay on the analog side of the road for a littler longer

I think the whole resolution thing is way overdone.

I shoot MF because I get more keepers. And I like it. And because I picked up a Pentax 645 for $160. And because Holgas are fun. (I could probably keep going).
It's a hobby. I do what I enjoy.

The End.

I like to combine portability and a larger negative size. I also sometimes like the square format so to combine these things I ended with the new folder M.F. range finder Cosina Voigtländer Bessa III 667. The Fuji lens is pretty good 3,5/80mm and the overall weight is exactly 1000 grams. In landscape photography it's marvellous what you can get with iso 25 (Efke) till iso 100 (Acros) films. For snap shots iso 400 in the camera and in AE mode. The design is very practical and the shutter is really silent. The filters I put in the lens hood (40,5mm) so it works very fast. A very bright view finder and all necessary information is in it. A quick loading system so in fact a very modern design. The 6x6cm or 6x7cm camera has only one disadvantage and that's the price........