Why medium format?..

[Alexander Ivashkin]

Hi there everyone,

Persuade (or dissuade) me into buying a medium format camera I've been thinking about a Mamiya C-series TLR specifically, since it's something totally different from my SLR, something that I haven't even seen before!

I've been reading about MF but couldn't really justify a purchase. Why should I move from 35mm into MF?..

Here are some of the arguments from the articles and my thoughts and counter-arguments:

MF is all about "having more film real estate". That means:

• lower noise at higher ISO. - a valid reason, but an MF is usually a bulky camera that would require a tripod anyway (a Mamiya C definitely would)! Hence, higher ISO wouldn't change much.
• more gradual transitions between light and shadows - that could mean something, from the artistic point of view, but is that really visible?..
• possibility to make big enlargements without loss of detail. - nice, but my current setup allows me to print 12x9.5" max (15x12" if I upgrade my trays, but that'd be the limit). 12x9.5" looks good enough from 35mm already, and even if I would print, say, 20x30", nobody should look at those large pictures from a few inches distance to pixel-peep. Wait, I've just uttered a dirty word! What would that be called in the film realm?.. "Grain-peep", I presume!

MF has lower DoF. - that is really good, I love it, but my 50/1.8 is shallow already, and if I want to go crazy, I can always do freelensing (the results are amazing)!

MF has an eerie feel due to using a longer focal length to portray a wide-angle image. - now that begins to sound like an artistic reason, but is that difference big enough?..

MF has that "special unimitable MF look" - that sounds like marketing buzzwords to me...

 

[btaylor]

MF looks different. Mostly it looks better than 35mm in my opinion. The reduced grain and superior contrast gradations are perceptible. Additionally, MF as a fully manual camera often on a tripod is much slower than working handheld in 35mm. That makes the picture taking a different sort of experience for me. I like it a lot. You also only have 12 (6x6) shots per roll, which makes me consider each snap of the shutter more carefully.

That said, after a very long time using MF and large format I recently came back to 35mm. I've been making 16x20 RA4 prints from outdated generic C41 ISO 200 film I bought mainly for testing purposes. Stunning results! Nothing like what I was using back in the '80s. I think the quality issue is less of a factor than it was decades ago. I haven't printed my 35mm Ektar 100 negs yet, they should be spectacular.

That said, life is short. Mamiya C series are cheap, really good and fun to use (I to owned one with a bunch of lenses). Buy one. Try it out, do you like the experience? If you don't you can sell it for what you paid for it and move on with one more photographic experience under your belt. But maybe you'll love it.

 

[R.Gould]

You get smoother transition between tones, and yes, it is easier to get big enlargements, I tend to print full frame on 9 1/2x12 paper, and most of my collection of cameras are 66 so often my prnts are square, some are from 645 negatives, I have 3 645 vameras, as for bulky large cameras, they don't need to be, the Mamuya tlr's are bulky, but for the most part tlr's are small and light, Rolleicord's and rolleiflex cameras are very light, and as for others, well, some folders, such as Voigtlander Perkeos can be fitted in a pocket, yet are full frame MF cameras, and if you are justing putting your toe in the water then a Folder is a good start, not to expensive, yet full frame 66 or 645, and great results without breaking the bank, then if you like MF then look at more expensive options, but you may well find that you like and enjoy using these folders, I do, started many years ago with just a pocketable 645 folder as a carry everywhere camera, now 90% of my work is on folders,
Richard

 

[blockend]

Just a personal thing, but I like 120 negatives printed small, 8 x 8" or so. In black and white there's a rich seamless quality to silver prints you don't get in other roll film or digital formats. Like looking into another world. Medium format folders fit in a pocket.

 

[jim10219]

I shoot 35mm for fun. It's not a serious format to me. It's like 110. It's fun to play around with, but the negatives are just too small to blow up to something big. Sometimes the fuzziness and grain add to the look of an image, but more often, it just distracts. Last century, you could often get away with it because digital cameras weren't around with their 24+ MP sensors to compete against, so 135 film appeared sharp. But now that you have these ultra fine resolution digital cameras in the hands of every Tom, Dick, and Harry, 135 film just looks fuzzy and grainy. Cell phones literally have better resolution than even the most expensive 35mm cameras (though the lenses obviously aren't as good). I used to be happy with 8x10's made from 135 film, but not anymore. Now I look at them and just think "yuck"! Medium format, however, still looks sharp, AND has the unique film look. To me, 120 film is the smallest format worth shooting for serious work.

But if you're happy with 35mm film, then you're happy with it. No reason to upgrade if you don't want to. Sharpness is overrated anyway.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

Rolleiflexes are the kings of Medium Format, from my perspective. Yes, there are bigger negatives out there, but the Rollei hits the handling sweet spot. If you've seen my work in the APUG galleries, you'll see what you can do with a hand-held Rolleiflex. And you can print BIG if you want and still not lose quality.

 

[MattKing]

I've been using 120 and 220 film for 40+ years. Starting with a Mamiya C330 that I still use and enjoy.
I've been using 35mm film for ~50 years.
On my recent short holiday, I used both.
I thoroughly enjoy both, and am glad that I have the choice.
Printing the 120/220 negatives - 6x4.5, 6x6, 6x7, 6x9 and 6x12 - is really fun. Even when printing fairly small. Projecting 6x4.5 or 6x6 slides is wonderful. If you have to scan film, scans from 120 are more satisfying unless you have an excellent 35mm scanner.
Printing 35mm negatives is also fun, and I'm very happy with prints on to 11x14 paper.
If you have the opportunity to try medium format, I would suggest you do so.

 

[bernard_L]

more gradual transitions between light and shadows - that could mean something, from the artistic point of view, but is that really visible?..

Yes, that is visible. And it is arguably more important than resolution or grain in setting MF apart from 35mm (whatever the virtues of 35mm...).

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

Bigger negative. Choose from 6x6, 6x7, 6x9, etc... I started with the C330. Enjoyed it, but didn't dig the square format or the parallax effect. My main medium format camera is the RB67.

 

[Luckless]

All cameras are a long series of compromises in a give-take game, and medium format sits nicely in a realm of comfortable advantages without excessive disadvantage in any direction.

The large film negatives are moderately forgiving and easy to work with, whether using analog, hybrid, or going full digital capture. You capture lots of information to work with, while not dealing with the full size and expense of feeding film into a large format system, and you can have most of the flexibility and portability of smaller 35mm systems if you want. I have a few negatives that are out of focus and rather soft, but it is very hard to notice unless they're getting enlarged well above 10".

Look over medium format photos, and ask yourself if you find elements of them more pleasing than your smaller format system, or at least interesting enough to make you want to experiment.

Also always remember how much lenses and lighting will play into the final look. Some people like the effects produced by older lenses, and some may find newer/'better' lenses to be overly "cold and clinical" due to 'excessive sharpness and detail'. But art is weird like that, so it is hard to say what is actually the 'best' system for any given photographer. Personally I like exploring 4x5 large format, 6x6 medium, and 35/crop. They're all different tools suitable for different things, and I find it handy to be able to swap between them as desired.

 

[Sirius Glass]

All of the OP's points are good. Larger negative, smoother tonality, ...
Mamiya Cxxx camera have the advantage of interchangeable lenses over Rolleicords and Rolleiflexes and the builtin bellows for close up work. All lack the ability to change film mid roll or switch film backs when one if busy shooting.

Also consider Hasselblads, since bodies now run about $300 to $400 and the 80mm lens is slightly more. The cost of the other lenses [CF lenses run around $600] is not much more than the Mamiya lenses so you would just have to wait a little longer between purchases. For most CF and later lenses, one set of filters will work for all of them.

 

[blockend]

Yes, that is visible. And it is arguably more important than resolution or grain in setting MF apart from 35mm (whatever the virtues of 35mm...).

Absolutely! The qualities I like in medium format film have little to do with sharpness and resolution.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

All of the OP's points are good. Larger negative, smoother tonality, ...
Mamiya Cxxx camera have the advantage of interchangeable lenses over Rolleicords and Rolleiflexes and the builtin bellows for close up work. All lack the ability to change film mid roll or switch film backs when one if busy shooting.

Also consider Hasselblads, since bodies now run about $300 to $400 and the 80mm lens is slightly more. The cost of the other lenses [CF lenses run around $600] is not much more than the Mamiya lenses so you would just have to wait a little longer between purchases. For most CF and later lenses, one set of filters will work for all of them.

There's something to be said for not having interchangeable lenses. For one, even the Rolleiflex 2.8E with its bigger lenses weighs less than a Mamiya C330 with an 80mm f2.8 lens. And while having only one lens choice is limiting, limitations can be a good thing. It makes you go out and take pictures with the camera you have instead of developing bedsores on your ass from searching obsessively for hours on end through Ebay listings for the best price on lens X.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

Hi there everyone,

Persuade (or dissuade) me into buying a medium format camera I've been thinking about a Mamiya C-series TLR specifically, since it's something totally different from my SLR, something that I haven't even seen before!

I've been reading about MF but couldn't really justify a purchase. Why should I move from 35mm into MF?..

Here are some of the arguments from the articles and my thoughts and counter-arguments:

MF is all about "having more film real estate". That means:

• lower noise at higher ISO. - a valid reason, but an MF is usually a bulky camera that would require a tripod anyway (a Mamiya C definitely would)! Hence, higher ISO wouldn't change much.
• more gradual transitions between light and shadows - that could mean something, from the artistic point of view, but is that really visible?..
• possibility to make big enlargements without loss of detail. - nice, but my current setup allows me to print 12x9.5" max (15x12" if I upgrade my trays, but that'd be the limit). 12x9.5" looks good enough from 35mm already, and even if I would print, say, 20x30", nobody should look at those large pictures from a few inches distance to pixel-peep. Wait, I've just uttered a dirty word! What would that be called in the film realm?.. "Grain-peep", I presume!

MF has lower DoF. - that is really good, I love it, but my 50/1.8 is shallow already, and if I want to go crazy, I can always do freelensing (the results are amazing)!

MF has an eerie feel due to using a longer focal length to portray a wide-angle image. - now that begins to sound like an artistic reason, but is that difference big enough?..

MF has that "special unimitable MF look" - that sounds like marketing buzzwords to me...

In my opinion, MF is the ideal compromise between size, eight, flexibility,portability and image quality.

 

[ME Super]

It takes quite a while for me to shoot 36 exposures of film (unless it's a special occasion). I get to see my results quicker with medium format's shorter rolls (12 in the case of 6x6). Then there's the nostalgia factor of square pictures (my parents had a Kodak Instamatic when I was a kid, so most of my childhood photos are on 126 film (Kodachrome at that!)).

I sent a roll of HP5+ through dr5, I only have a 35mm slide projector, so I have no way to project these, but then with them being 6x6 (2 1/4" x 2 1/4"), I don't really need to.

Grain is less apparent in medium format, as well. I don't really care too much for ISO 800 films in 35mm, but in medium format, thanks to the larger area, there's less grain. Portra 800 in 120 is awesome!

 

[Gerald C Koch]

As an owner of three Mamiya C series cameras I must say that going from 35mm to one of these behemoths will be quite a shock. The C's are quite heavy even when equipped with only the 80mm lens. They are also a lot bulkier. Before the OP jumps in I would suggest first getting a cheap Yashica TLR to see if they like the format. Remember also that you must be equipped to enlarge the larger negatives. This means having an enlarger and lens which can handle this..

 

[Ian Grant]

I agree with you Gerald, a Yashicamat is a good camera to begin shooting MF with. I did a long weekend swap while at school borrowing a Yashicamat 124G and lending my SLR and lenses and quickly realised the increase in print quality.

When I could afford it I bought a pair of C series MAmiya's a C33 and C3, great work-horse cameras which I used a lot for work, after they were stolen I switched to Mamiya 645 cameras. I also moved to LF for work later getting a field camera for personal work.

The question I ask myself now is why 35mm ? When I shot rock concerts (on film) they were great, also for slides but the drop in quality is too much for my personal taste and I found that while I was shooting a lot of 35mm I just wasn't printing/using any of the images. Now I rarely shoot 35mm and have returned to using TLRs alongside my 5x4 cameras instead, I use a Yashicamat 124 while in Turkey/Greece and Rolleiflex cameras here in the UK. Unlike others I now like the square format and never crop.

Ian

 

[Vw1302]

It tooks me a few years when I decided to move forward to MF.. I think that this is a normal evolution... I started with cheap but traditional TLRs here in Czech rep., but after a year I realized that I want gain more from adventages of MF, so I bought Bronica SQ-Ai system with multiple lenses and backs... and I am happy now.. on the other way l realize that it is only matter of time when I move to LF...

 

[E. von Hoegh]

The improvement in tonality and reduction in grain when going from 35 to say 6x9cm is dramatic.

 

[tedr1]

Instead of thinking of it as a step up from miniature format, 35mm to MF, think of it this way. Looking at the big picture of photography, miniature cameras were a recent invention to increase two things, increase the portability of the camera; increase number of cameras sold to "consumer" photographers. Both these two were realized. They did so by sacrificing visual image quality. Until 35mm came along people didn't worry about fine grain emulsions and high contrast developers, these had to be invented to get acceptable results from the small negative size of 35mm. In the days before 35mm, cameras used plate sizes (8x10, 4x5, whole, half and quarter plates, and the roll film formats), all much bigger than the 35mm negative size. With these formats so far as use for pictorial photography, grain was unobtrusive, contrast could be manipulated at will, the rendering of fine texture was taken for granted, resolution was a property of the lens not the negative.

The 35mm camera is a wonderful tool and with care can yield impressive results, but it is not where photography came from, it is where it ended up as a highly portable consumer format for mass consumption. The choice of MF is step towards the pictorial origins of photography, and a rewarding one. The cameras are hand-holdable, some permit interchange of lenses, significant improvement in rendition of texture can be achieved compared to 35mm, and because the professional market has dropped film, film MF cameras are cheap.

Jump in

 

[RattyMouse]

MF is all about "having more film real estate". That means:

• lower noise at higher ISO. - a valid reason, but an MF is usually a bulky camera that would require a tripod anyway

You havent seen a Fuji GF670W have you? I can shoot hand held down to 1/10th of a second without a tripod. I carry it all day long when out walking and shooting. Not even remotely a bulky camera. The sister camera, the GF670 is even smaller. Beautiful medium format negatives.

 

[Ian Grant]

Funny you should say that Ted as I was just thinking the same.

My Scottish grand parents wedding photographs (which I posses) were shot on a large format 12"x10" camera around 1910 (I don't have the exact year to hand) but they are contact prints. Whole plate 8.5"x6>5" was pretty much the standard format , 10x8 was a normal format as well, the medium formats were Half plate, 5x4 and Quarter plate. Anything smaller was miniature and that included all the 120/620 formats and later 35mm, later there were sub-miniature formats like 16mm.

My father never used a 35mm camera although he got close, I think he really only started making images while in the army during WWII, he was issued with a 6x9 camera - I assume an Ensign, I used to own it but aged 2 or 3 I had no idea of the make etc I never had any film. He must have bought a newer 6x9 camera as there's images of me aged 2/3 shooting with the old one. But By that was swiftly replaced by a Bantam Colorsnap II an 828 roll film camera, same width as 36mm and later revamped as the 126 format.

So yes perspective is important, but this history varies markedly between Europe and the US, 35mm took a greater hold earlier in Europe due to WWII and a huge disruption in camera manufacture and also shortages of materials. The UK had huge import restrictions as we paid off US war debts, we had no Marshall relief unlike the losers

Ian

 

[RattyMouse]

The question I ask myself now is why 35mm ?

I shoot 35mm film for the extremes. I grab my Nikon FM2n when I want to shoot at 20mm or my Canon 1V when I want to shoot at 400mm. My medium format gear doesnt work too well at these extremes.

 

[RattyMouse]

I also shoot 35mm when I want to make panorama images (thanks Huss!). Since that is my newest camera, I'm shooting more and more 35mm film. One roll of Acros shot yesterday!

 

[Ian Grant]

I shoot 35mm film for the extremes. I grab my Nikon FM2n when I want to shoot at 20mm or my Canon 1V when I want to shoot at 400mm. My medium format gear doesnt work too well at these extremes.

I think that's my attitude. I definitely shot 35mm when the specialist push process 1600 EI E6 slide films were still being made, digital killed those off first.

Where I differ is I have the equivalent of a 20mm lens for my 5x4 camera a 65mm SA, and the few times I've used it I've often achieved some great exhibition images. I rarely shoot longer than normal (50mm on a 35mm camera, 80mm on a 120, 150mm on 5x4, the exception is when shooting rock concerts where I'd typically use the 70-10o maybe 120mm end of my 70-210mm f2.8.4 Vivitar SI lens.

I have longer lenses for LF (or MF with a roll film back) but they fall into the extreme you mention and for specific projects, I want that added quality of a larger format, which is why I also shoot with a 10x8 camera.

When I've time I shoot LF. when in aa hurry MF and I love a fixed focal length camera like my Yashicamat 124 and pair of Rolleiflex cameras, or my MPP Autocord

Ian