medium format, large format: is 'more' necessarily more...?

I just bought a used Toyo field camera. I am a beginner with LF.

I have a CX but it has not gone outside since I bought it. Too inconvenient to pack and carry.

I was looking hard at the Linhof field cameras for a while. They are more than the ones in your links though, even those with problems.

Bonuses for LF that you don't normally think of... The lenses are cheaper, and not constrained to a make or model. The shorter lenses are all macro lenses with the right bellows extension; a good used macro for my MF is like $1800 or so for example.

Those are both good prices.

I am pretty sure that the film is cut from the same stock regardless of format size. But I could be wrong, why does the Massive Dev Chart have different developing schemes based on format, I dunno?

" The shorter lenses are all macro lenses with the right bellows extension;"
Not really. View camera lenses, like lenses for all other formats are optimized for a particular range of magnification and if you use them within that range and at the optimal apertures for that specific lens you will get the quality that the lens was designed for. If you use it outside those parameters your image quality will degrade.
So, for instance, a Rodenstock 180mm Apo Sironar S is optimized for an image ratio of 1:10 and will deliver outstanding results between about 1:5 to infinity. The older 180mm Apo Sironar N was optimized for 1:20 and performs best at 1:10 to infinity.
However the 180mm Apo Macro Sironar is optimized for 1:5 to 2:1 and no lens will equal its performance within that range with macro photography of 3 dimensional objects. Similarly an Apo Ronar process lens (there was no 180mm) will be unequaled for 1:1 shooting of flat objects at its design aperture of f22.
So what your statement actually meant that thanks to the double or triple extension bellows built into viewcameras shorter focal length view camera lenses can be used for close-up and even some macro work. But not at the quality level of a true large format macro lens.

Bob,

Comparing a LF standard lens "macro" negative versus a MF macro negative what do you get? Negative to negative.

4x5 or 8x10 negatives make excellent contact prints for maximum detail.
Best regards,
/Clay

180mm Apo Macro Sironar is $1900 new at BH is still in the ball park of a used Rollei 120 Makro PQS.

So the lenses are still cheaper in LF, comparatively speaking.

I doubt the OP is interested in that lens, considering that he's looking at $200 used cameras and is a student.

But I might. It would definitely make me question buying the used Rollei lens.

Contact prints (good though they are made from 4x5 or 8x10 negatives) still hide lots of detail.

Richard,
It will deliver greater resolution, within the optimization range, better color, less distortion, etc. You could also use the more popular 120 Apo Macro Sironar. It has the same optimization just needs less bellows. It also covers 1:1 with movements on 5x7. And costs less again.

Q.G.-could you explain your comment on contact prints more fully, english is my first language and it makes no sense to me at all. I make 8x10 contact prints and the detail I find extraordinary, any degree of enlargment seems to lose 'something' in comparison. Tonality is also better in my opinion, unmatchable in fact, which is the main reason I contact print.
Regarding the original post, I believe that medium format film is thinner than sheet film which helps it to fight above it's weight in terms of resolution, which also explains why the dev times can be different between formats.
Also bear in mind that large format film rarely sits as flat as medium format which impacts on sharpness, also bear in mind that the entire shooting experience is completely different between formats, not a small issue.

I make 8x10 contact prints and the detail I find extraordinary, any degree of enlargment seems to lose 'something' in comparison.

Mark,

I believe Q.G.'s comment was meant to reflect the fact that the resolving power of photographic paper
is much lower than the resolving power of film, so if you make a contact print from 8x10 (which I do also),
you will lose much of the fine detail that exists in the negative.

This makes sense since all modern films are designed to capture as much information as possible, with
the intention of enlarging the image.

For example, if the paper can resolve 25 lp/mm and the film can resolve 100 lp/mm, you would need to
enlarge the film image by 4x to accurately reproduce all of the detail that exists in the negative.

If your enlargements are deficient, I suggest you buy a better quality enlarging lens.

- Leigh