Why medium format?..

[Sirius Glass]

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.

I always smile when I see a Rollei enthusiast with a Wide Angle Rollei, Normal Rollei and Telephoto Rollei scrambling over the rocks when he could have been packing a Mamiya Cxx or Hasselblad with lenses. The bling factor of carrying three cameras is quite impressive.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

I always smile when I see a Rollei enthusiast with a Wide Angle Rollei, Normal Rollei and Telephoto Rollei scrambling over the rocks when he could have been packing a Mamiya Cxx or Hasselblad with lenses. The bling factor of carrying three cameras is quite impressive.

I could give a rat's ass about bling factor. And anyone who can afford all three can afford a damn sherpa to carry the two they're not using at the time. My point about single-lens cameras still stands - it makes you think more about the photo before you take it, without distracting you from the act of taking it. Somewhat paradoxical, but if you try it it makes sense.

 

[tomfrh]

MF has higher resolution which gives more detail and smoother tones for a given print size. This is the “medium format look” you see.

In practice 35mm are faster and have shallower depth of field.

Despite the old wives tales, using a longer focal length for the same angle of view makes no difference. Perspective is determined by camera position alone, and focal length merely determines crop/zoom factor.

 

[btaylor]

tomfrh, the camera position to subject distance and angle of view in this case is the same (35mm vs 6x6), but the focal length is not. At 10', depth of field for a 50mm lens at f2.8 on a 35mm still camera is 2' 1". At 10' depth of field with an 80mm lens at f2.8 on a 6x6 MF camera is 1' 2". I'm just reading DOF tables.

 

[blockend]

The important thing to remember is not subject distance - no one determines their compositions by how many feet their subject is from the camera - but by the relationship of the subjects within the frame.

The appeal of 120 film for me is not absolute sharpness, I normally use 3-element lenses which "lack" such characteristics, but tonality in the print. Nor do I exhaust the size potential of medium format negatives, tending to print within the square of 10 x 8" photographic paper, so about 7 x 7" plus border. Old photographs were often taken on large negatives with lenses of indifferent quality and printed small (or contact printed) which gives them a particular appearance that is the opposite of the small negative - sharp lens aesthetic which followed.

 

[iakustov]

For me MF cameras definitely win in portability/output image ratio if enlarged not more than 5x on the longest side.
As already said, it is not about the sharpness, but the tonality, the more the film size, the better. Comparing even 8''x10'' prints from 35mm film and from e.g. 6x7 film will show you the difference. And it is much easier to shoot 120 film compared to larger film.
But one day you see a contact print from 8''x10'' negative, you will probably start wondering about large format camera..

 

[tedr1]

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

Hi Ian

I'm a Brit in the USA. I also have a fine Edwardian family wedding group print, unfortunately it is a small copy and not the original. The family was not wealthy however everybody is wearing their "Sunday best" the women's outfits in particular are spectacular.

My first large format camera was whole plate, a used British Kodak outfit, I was poor and it was cheap I brought it the USA and eventually sold it for more than it cost me.

The little I know about the Marshall Plan I learned from Wikipedia, the information there seems to indicate Britain did receive Marshall funds https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marshall_Plan My sister was born in November 1947 just at the start of that terrible winter which may have been one of the low points of life post WW2 for the British people. I believe this was before the Marshall aid arrived.

 

[removed account4]

I could give a rat's ass about bling factor. And anyone who can afford all three can afford a damn sherpa to carry the two they're not using at the time. My point about single-lens cameras still stands - it makes you think more about the photo before you take it, without distracting you from the act of taking it. Somewhat paradoxical, but if you try it it makes sense.

couldn't agree more !
single lens makes you think about EVERYTHING
id love to just have 1 lens but unfortunately sometimes i can't.

===

OP
medium format is a great format. it offers everything .. great film, great lenses, great cameras.
the film is large enough to make a beautiful jewel sized contact print too ...

have fun!
john

 

[tomfrh]

At 10' depth of field with an 80mm lens at f2.8 on a 6x6 MF camera is 1' 2". I'm just reading DOF tables.

Yes you're right, the depth of field is different if you leave aperture the same. But 35mm format has large relative apertures in general and this tends to cancels out the medium format shallow depth of field advantage.

As a comparison, look up a 35mm format 50mm f/1.2 or f/1.4. They'll be shallower depth of field than the 80mm 2.8 on 6x6

 

[btaylor]

I'll take your word on the 105/f2.4 vs 50/f1.2 DOF equivalents but really, an f1.2? I guess if you're that set on shallow DOF. Usually not the best optical performance shooting wide open with a super fast lens.

My preference would be a fast near wide open 85 or 90mm on 35mm for a portrait with a fuzzy background--

I agree, you can get the MF DOF in 35mm, but you do have to work for it, and you still don't get the smoother tonal gradation and resolution of MF. MF does have a different look for the most part in my book. If that's a look you want then try a MF camera. Nothing wrong with 35mm, great photographs are made in all formats!

 

[tomfrh]

MF does have a different look for the most part in my book.

I agree, however in my opinion it is primarily due to larger film area which provides the resolution and smoothness like you mentioned, and not the esoteric optical effects that people like to talk about.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I could give a rat's ass about bling factor. And anyone who can afford all three can afford a damn sherpa to carry the two they're not using at the time. My point about single-lens cameras still stands - it makes you think more about the photo before you take it, without distracting you from the act of taking it. Somewhat paradoxical, but if you try it it makes sense.

Hey, I was jerking your chain. My point is that if you are vacationing and need three focal lengths, then a Mamiya Cxx or Hasselblad is easier to use than carrying three Rolleis.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

Hey, I was jerking your chain. My point is that if you are vacationing and need three focal lengths, then a Mamiya Cxx or Hasselblad is easier to use than carrying three Rolleis.

No doubt. Although the Cxx additional bulk and weight, plus the extra lenses, probably comes close to the Rollei trio. And Hassy lenses aren't exactly featherweights either. Both do have the advantage of less overall volume in your bag, but not necessarily a substantial weight savings.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Carrying multiple Hasselblad lenses is part of my physical fitness and conditioning program.

 

[Cholentpot]

The photos off of MF look smother and immediately identifiable as MF.

I like the 6x6 format for shooting but I don't say no to 6x4.5 either. There's something nice about staring a roll of 120. I use my MF cameras sparingly due to the cost. It's where I started and it can be quite forgiving given the right camera. Everything looks better in 120.

 

[Alexander Ivashkin]

Oh my, so many helpful replies Thanks everyone!

Actually, I've posted this just for amusement and to spark some conversation, but look what you've did – I'm seriously looking for an MF camera now!

RattyMouse, I didn't know about GF670W, it looks amazing! But a bit expensive for a camera "to buy and try and like, maybe" The same goes for Hassies or Rollei's.
I'm buying a C33 or C330, depending on what I can get my hands on.
Gerald, that "shock" is exactly what I'm looking forward to; it won't make much sense buying a camera that feels and holds like my 35mm SLR. I'd like something totally different, utterly shocking, absolutely alien, if you wish.

To sum it up for the posterity:

– buy and try. Actually I can locally sell a Mamiya TLR for about 30-40% more than what I'd pay on eBay
– silky smoothness of images
– I'm definitely for going single-lens, for creativity reasons. I own only two lenses now and would have just one on the Mamiya. Maybe will buy a wide one since I don't have any on my 35mm kit. But in any case the second lens will be sitting at home when I'm out shooting.
– "The choice of MF is step towards the pictorial origins of photography, and a rewarding one" - thanks tedr1 for this wonderful sentence!
– Be prepared to print big and check if your kit is ready for MF (my enlarger works just fine with 6x6)

 

[macfred]

...
I'm buying a C33 or C330, depending on what I can get my hands on ...

You're on the right track I guess - get a Mamiya C - or -for my taste- a Rollei ('cord or 'flex - it doesn't matter, so long as in good condition) and it will give you a big surprise.

 

[blockend]

I'm buying a C33 or C330, depending on what I can get my hands on.

The C330 was the ultimate development of the twin lens reflex camera, in technical terms at least. Interchangeable lenses, frame indication for close ups, extendable bellows with exposure compensation markings, an accessory prism, a mirrored "porrofinder", and a paramender to move lens positions on a tripod. And the lenses are excellent. The downside is the weight. The younger me carried one as my regular walkabout camera - couldn't do it now. It's a studio camera.

 

[macfred]

The C330 was the ultimate development of the twin lens reflex camera ... The downside is the weight. The younger me carried one as my regular walkabout camera - couldn't do it now ...

Totally agree !

Regards -
An other elderly gent