Advantages of M/F over 35mm other than bigger enlargements

Depends on what you shoot and how you do your printing. I use both and like both. When I used to scan and print digitally, I never found medium format all that compelling. I used a mid-range 35mm scanner and a high end consumer flatbed for medium format. Now that I've switched over to the wet darkroom entirely, I see a substantial difference. I suspect that I would have seen a similar difference with a dedicated medium format scanner, but I personally prefer the wet darkroom so I never went down that path. I can see a difference even at 8x10 and it is fairly obvious. I'm not even sure I could nail down exactly what the difference is (other than grain).

Are you scanning? Even 645 will stand out from 35mm with a half decent scanner. Less grain with better detail and tonality. My Epson V 700 does a respectable job with MF. Pentax 645's are selling cheap now and are fine cameras.The lenses are also affordable and are of good quality. That or a Mamiya 645 are great deals. You can get a TLR for cheap money but despite their charm and appeal they can be clunky to use and most have a fixed normal lens that can be limiting at times.

As I use both 35mm and MF, my feeling is that if your prints will be 8x10 or smaller, any noticeable difference will be primarily a function of your printing skills. I've seen work over the years in the range of 8x10 prints which blows away 35mm...obviously done by master printers from well composed, exposed and lighted subjects. I've also seen lots of truly outstanding 35mm work printed at 8x10 which rivals MF work. I doubt I could personally print sufficiently well to get discernable differences at 8x10, but certainly others could. If you're not really dedicated to mastering a new format, it seems that as a poor grad student (at this time), you might better spend your time (and money) to mastering the equipment you presently have. Later you can tackle the MF.

Medium format just looks different. Similar angles of view have less depth of field, and this, along with the greater tonality and sharpness can lead the images to have more of a 3D pop than 35mm images. You generally have less depth of field (unless you stop down all the way), the tonality is better, and obviously it is sharper. The most noticeable differences at small sizes are the tonality and the smaller depth of field.

My personal opinion on M/F vs. 35 mm is that the M/F gives me significantly improved results, actually, astonishingly improved results.

I attribute this to the following:

a. I use a tripod with M/F not with 35mm.

b. I use shutter prerelease/mirror lockup with M/F and not with 35mm.

c. I use a cable release with M/F and not with 35mm.

d. The above slows me down a lot with M/F and encourages me to actually compose the picture and think about the exposure things I don't do as well with 35mm.

So you can read this as saying that the astonishing improvement is probably more due to the lousy 35mm photographs I take than to any real skill I have with my M/F camera. I suspect that in most cases I would do just as well with 35mm if I would just treat it like I treat m/f and I suspect I would do just as poorly with m/f if I treated it the way I treat 35mm.

That said, I do like the waist level finder on my m/f. It provides a larger image than the prism finder on my 35mm and when mounted on a tripod gives me the ability to precisely compose my poor photographs. On the other hand I find the waist level finder less well adapted for action shots than the prism finder, possibly because I haven't done enough of them to adapt to the reversed image.

Keep in mind that I don't do large enlargements, I am not a professional, or even a particularly skilled amateur.

There are two major advantages to M/F over 35:

1. M/F equipment is expensive enough that I don't have much money left to waste on other things.

2. M/F equipment is heavy enough and bulky enough that I frequently leave it behind thus saving me a lot of processing time and expense.

The difference in depth of field options/controls is what keeps me from selling my MF gear!

For me the biggest advantage in going from 35mm to 6x7 was in the way it completely changed how I approach photography. It's an entirely different ball game really. It requires a slower more deliberate technique then 35mm or digital. With only 10 shots per roll, I find that I pay more attention and therefore when I press the shutter it's because at that point I really really want to. To do otherwise is to have to sit down and reload another film back every few minutes which I've had to do when I start getting carried away.

This is not to say one cannot blow through several rolls if the situation calls for it. This weekend I was shooting at Santa Monica 3rd St. Promenade which I keep returning to occasionally. At one point I noticed a woman dancing to the music of one of the street performers. I sat down and before I knew it, I had shot the remaining 5 rolls of just her dancing around. I changed lenses from normal to wide and back again and had to keep reloading film after each roll but it was such a amazing experience that when I looked in my bag for another roll and didn't find any I was really disappointed.

So I would say go ahead and pick up a MF camera. Even if you only use one back and lens, I think you will soon wonder why you didn't make this move sooner. Good luck.

With a TLR, the obvious advantage is the HUGE bright focusing screen.

"Is that something that would be apparent at 8x10?" David, try and get to a museum or a gallery to look at an 8x10 print made by contact with an 8x10 neg. The quality will astound you yet it's still an 8x10 print. Although not quite the same as large format cameras, medium format produces 8x10's that sing with a level of grain-free, tonal smoothness and sharpness that will take your image making to a different level from 35mm. Go for the Bronica 6x6 system-lightweight and the PS lenses are excellent. The equipment is so affordable now. I picked up a really clean SQ-A basic system (body, metered prism,back and PS 80mm) for $300! I wish this gear was this cheap when I was coming up ( it was closer to $2K back in the 80's). If you are interested in making a jump in photographic image quality....on a budget.....the question isn't IF you go medium format, the question is WHICH medium format system to buy. IMO, Bronica offers the best bang for the buck...Good luck!..............................Lou

Advantages:

1. Enlargements

2. Tonality

3. MF equipment forces improvements in technique (eg more tripod usage, more thoughts about composition, etc prior to pressing shutter).

Really, shooting MF forces you to slow down and think. DSLR's are the exact opposite, esp. those who love to run at 8 fps.

I use MF but don't necessarily make bigger enlargements. I just prefer its greater resolution of detail and reduced grain. In fact, I ve recently printed some 6x9 cm negs to 7x5" prints, so enlargement is definiely not the issue.

Now that I set up a darkroom for 6x6 all I can say is "Wow!". Depth of field, tonality, small detail... MF just looks so much more *alive* (all technical explanations are nice but this describes best what I see) than 35mm, even in 8x10. Scanning with inexpensive flatbed is also much easier if that's what you do. With current prices you can't lose, I'd get Bronica, Mamiya... before an old TLR.

Stephen makes a good point and it's true that sometimes my 35mm and MF images are pretty much the same but when most things go right MF can be amazing and very much different looking than 35mm.

In the olden days, I could see differences in 8x10, even from the 'baby MF' 645 negatives. It is the 'tonality etc' thing you mention. Even offset printed A4 colour calendars would maintain the look, I reckon.

Differences between scanned 35mm film and MF film should be maintained on the same scanner, but scanned film against a good DSLR, then not so sure at 8x10...

Some experienced pros who use both MF film and scan it and various DSLRs say the 'look' of a DSLR is different. Smoother and less grain, but perhaps less depth and tonality etc. Quality of scanner is obviously important, as the dynamic range and colour depth of the best is much more than the worst.

So the look might be different...'the vibe' as it were.

Larger viewfinders, and faster flash sync speed (no many MF cameras but not all).

I shoot both 35mm and medium format transparencies. When I project the glass mounted medium format transparencies, the difference is dramatic. I've had some of my medium format transparencies drum scanned for a show. The prints were approximately 30 inches square. The prints were very nice, but still did not approach the projected image.

When photographing flowers, I use the same technique with both formats: tripod, mirror lock-up, hand-held spot meter, careful framing, etc. Still, 35mm doesn't come close.

However, for travel, street walking, a day at the zoo, the 35mm comes along. The old saying applies: use the right tool for the job.

Jerry

Dust on negatives is magnified less for the same size print, though obviously there is a smaller surface on the smaller formats for the dust to be on, I find it easier to clean a potentially greater quantity of larger pieces off than fewer small tenacious ones that squinting barely reveals. Of course I agree with the relative grain size, tonality of MF, and slower more considered process as the others have said.

There is more information avavilable for an 8x10 print from a larger neg. Think of it as more image forming dots per unit of measure. This increases detail and tonality greatly.

You are on a slippery slope. This is the kind of thinking that lead me to large format . . .

A very important difference is depth-of-field. For a given aperture, you will get less depth-of-field the larger the format. You can work out the optics of this, but the simple way to see why is that the larger the format the "closer" things are, relatively speaking, so the greater all the angles are.

This means that with MF it is much easier to do very selective focus, without needing to use a stupidly fast lens. When I got my Pentax 67 I was worried that the lenses were typically only f2.x, whereas I was used to using f1.4 lenses on 35mm. I soon realised that f2.x was plenty fast enough (in terms of depth-of-field, not light-gathering) for a 6x7 camera.

You become even more aware of this if you use smaller-than-35mm digital sensors. I use a Ricoh GRD2, which is a fine camera with a small sensor and a fairly wide lens. I don't find noise a problem (I don't make huge prints, I guess), but you have to be aware that you essentially can not do selective focus at all with it without heroic effort (using the macro setting and taking pictures of things an inch or two away is OK). It's just a completely different game than using MF, and not just because of the weight & size of the camera (though that is quite a noticable difference of course).

The difference in depth-of-field, for me, is the main reason for using MF.

On principle, if you are a student of photography (and any good practitioner will consider themselves to be "students for life") you have a responsibility to know the tools available to you, and to engage yourself with these tools completely enough to know what works for you and what does not - and why.

If, like Tim B. above, you find yourself liking the selective focus which is made easier by MF (and indeed, selective focus combined with the relatively smoother tonalities of MF (as compared to 35mm) has a wonderful look and feel) and as selective focus equals large aperture which generally equates to easier hand-holdability and thus mobility and sponteneity...then you've found a good tool.

On the other hand, if you like front to back sharpness (large depth) you might find this difficult with a 6X7 if its to be hand held - while 645 might prove to be a (barely) adequate compromise - again, in the realm of hand-held shooting.

Things do change once a tripod comes into play - and I, for one, love both the ritualistic and contemplative aspects of looking with both eyes down into the screen of my Rollei TLR as I tweak both focus and composition - knowing also that I have much more flexibility in terms of choosing an appropriate balance of depth and the expression of whatever subject movement might exist. But I also like to use my Rollei handheld - either with a waist level finder or a prism - when the situation calls for more sponteneity.

Then again, for the ultimate in image control - nothing beats large format...and yet there are downsides to this also. Always a compromise...and you need to decide which compromise is most acceptable for a given situation.

As for sticking with an 8X10 print size? Depends on so many factors... But do get back to us on this!

MF is a lot of expense more, for a different - not ncessarily better type of result - take a look at HCB, or Gibson photos, and then take a look at Kenna or Parry photos - you will understand the difference easily even on a small print. If you do your darkroom work, you can give it a shot with a cheaper good quality TLR like Rolleicord, if you scan, I'd say better invest some money into the best possible film scanner and best possible lens for your 35mm camera.

David, the guys have pretty well gone over the major points... Let me just make a couple of comments..

Go to making your own silver prints - they do look different than inkjet prints, and they are perceived differently by people looking at your images...

Let me make a pitch for 6X6 cameras.... Everyone will immediately start in on having to crop to fit 8X10... Don't crop... My suggestion is to print 8X8 on the 8X10 paper... No cropping, no increase in grain (the equivalent of digital noise) and the square format immediately sets your prints apart from the endless rectangular images we are all bombarded by... In addition, the 2 inch apron is the perfect space for your signature or chop (stamp), and a bit of text about the picture... Sets you apart from just another guy showing his pictures...

Lastly, shoot tight... Move in till you can see the whites of their eyes... If you have to crop the negative to get the print you want, you didn't shoot tight enough...

cheers ... denny

Another quick point. You mention that you don't intend to enlarge over 8x10. I used to think the same thing but when I made my first 16x20 fiber print I was hooked for life. 16x20 is my favorite size to print. Therefore have more sizes to print at just gives you more options.

Hear! Hear!

What Kari said. The 'wow' factor, when you first see a cracking shot on the lightbox, is worth the difference alone. I wouldn't go TLR route though, unless you know you will get on with a waist level finder - I didn't!

P.S.

My "Hear! Hear!" was to show i agree with Dennis' point about using a 6x6 camera as a 6x6 camera.
I never understood why people thought that, because paper comes in rectangular, oblong formats, you must produce ditto pictures.
(And i agree with the rest he wrote too.)

"I've worked with ... APS-C sized DSLR cameras ... poor grad student ... I'm not sure I have a need for prints larger than 8x10 "

Don't bother with MF in your case. The sharpness and tonal quality of the print will be limited by the relatively small print. Look at it this way, an 8x10 print holds just about 7MP of information.

When it's all said and done, the least expensive MF kit plus scanner will run ~$500. Spend the budget instead on one or two fast primes, f2 and better, for your DSLR. This will get you images that approaches the shallow DOF of most MF systems. If you really want to go all out, look into adapting old super-fast primes to your camera, e.g., Pentax 50mm f1.2 in the M42 mount.

I totaly agree with Robert Lee. Yes it is nice to shoot with MF, but it won't give you anything totaly different. Shoot, shoot shoot. Maybe take a workshop to educate yourself more on photography. I think that will bring you more than diving into MF

Just my two cents of course

Leeuwtje

Tonality, tonality, tonality. . . .

Look at some old medium format B&W glossy prints (not inkjet) and then ask someone to reproduce that effect with 35mm, whether film or digital. I don't think that they can, and it might well be the wet-processing and the printing, but, whatever it is, it is real.

--Lannie

Sorry, but I have to disagree with the previous poster - MF film looks miles better than digital. Miles better. I have yet to see a single digital image that I actually think looks anywhere near as good as film.

Ooops, someome posted just before I did. I was refering to Mark de Leeuw.

I agree with G. Lindzey's points a - d above and Marc Todd's first paragraph. Even setting aside the technical differences/advantages of MF (or, denying they exist if you're so inclined), there's the way MF changes you because you're using heavier kit and shorter, more expensive film rolls. The instructor in a recent class I took summarized it in a great way. (Granted, it worked better verbally than it will here.) He said with small format, you walk around going "click, click, click, click, click" [and he said "click" about once per second]; and then "with medium format, you go "Hmmm ... [shows motions of carefully composing/focusing camera] ... click. Hmmm ... click" [and the "clicks" were more like 10 seconds apart]; finally with LF, [makes show of walking around the room cameraless, then:] "this looks good; maybe I'll set up here." That is, you reconnoiter the scene in advance and pre-compose in your head because it's such a hassle to set up this whopping great piece of kit.

The overall concept makes sense, though I don't know if I'll take it to the logical end of going LF, given the cost, size, and complexity of the kit.

Antonio, I believe you that your taste directs you into MF. And I also agree with David that MF slows you down and makes you more aware.

Personaly I think that is not the issue for an (as the OP states it) "poor grad student". Another camera won't make him a better photographer. He already has a DSLR and a 35 mm film. I think he should use the direct feedback and go out and shoot - shoot - shoot. If he wants to be more aware he can shoot film with a prime (35 mm for a student is as expensive as 120 film for a working adult and the prime makes him aware about composition)

Let's be honest, 25 people responded to his question. How many of this 25 photo enthousiasts shoot minimum twice a week ....? How many of us have an updated portfolio here on this site ...?

David, at this point your equipment probably isn't holding you back. So why worry ... enjoy the light! Go out and shoot.

Leeuwtje

depth of field has nothing to do with negative size or even focal lenght.

Stuart - "Medium format just looks different. Similar angles of view have less depth of field"

Doug - "The difference in depth of field options/controls is what keeps me from selling my MF gear!"

Tim - "This means that with MF it is much easier to do very selective focus, without needing to use a stupidly fast lens."

About 15 (maybe 20) years ago, I was that close to purchasing a MF system, basically for the DOF argument. I loved the shallow DOF look. On 35mm, I had a 50mm f1.2, an 85mm f1.4, a 135mm f2.0. Then I borrowed some gear, couple of different systems, both 645 and 6x7. And I sat down, looked at lens line ups in the MF and 35mm systems, and sat down and did some DOF calculations...

Now, the "stupidly fast lenses" (as Tim puts it) that I already had cost less than the "slow and smart" MF lenses. But the big problem was that when we look at 645, matching a 50mm f1.2 takes an 80mm f2.0 and most systems have an f2.8. To match the 85mm f1.4 means a 135mm f2.2, and again, all that is offered is f2.8, and that 135mm f2.0 is only matched by a 220mm f3.2, and again, we see f4. Heck, even dropping down to less "stupidly fast" lenses on 35 (50mm f1.8, 85m f1.8, etc) still put me even with the best MF had to offer.

6x7 is even worse.

I have got to stop reading the "unified forum view"...

I do use digital, 35mm and MF (Bronica ETRS) with 50mm, 75mm and 150mm lenses. I'd say that MF blows away DSLR (APS sensor) and that DSLR is much more convenient than 35mm film. I stopped shooting 35mm completely. If you intend to just display your work on screen, anything, even a decent P&S digicam will be OK. If you intend to print 8"x12" or larger MF is the way to go, no doubt about it. I am happy with the results I get from my Bronica shots scanned in an Epson V500 and Vuescan. Wish only I had more opportunities to use it. To wrap up.... go for the MF, it will open a new world for you!!! Some of the prints I made and display can be seen here.. http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=5021905&size=lg

David,

"depth of field has nothing to do with negative size or even focal lenght."

Yes, and no.
DOF depends on magnification. The larger negative size means that to get the same angle of view, you need longer lenses, and then end up having a larger magnification = shallower DOF.
Whether you keep a shallower DOF depends on what you are going to do with the negative thus produced, compared to a negative produced using a smaller format.

Mark,

While this "Another camera won't make him a better photographer" thingy makes some sense, it only does so to a limited degree.
Better tools are of course important. They do not, per se, make the person using them better. But they als do not hold you back, and can indeed make life easier.
But it is not the only consideration, especially not when budget is tight.

Another, more blatant, 'falsism' is the thingy about the number of pictures one shoots. It has no direct relation to either whether one is an accomplished photographer or not, nor to the question whether having good tools is important or not.
To be honest: it's a rather pointless point. ;- )

David (van Hemel),

That's a good illustration. But only pertains to the type of photography in which you can spend a long time studying the different aspects a subject offers, to select the one you want at leisure.
For other types of photography, this "you reconnoiter the scene in advance and pre-compose in your head because it's such a hassle to set up this whopping great piece of kit" means you miss the opportunity to get the picture at all.
All types of cameras, all formats can be used for the more contemplative form of photography. For absolute speed, the smaller formats are better.
MF represents, in my view, the ideal compromise: great image quality. And quick enough, when it needs to be. You can be quicker, but the price you pay is too high: 35 mm format (film or digital) is just not good enough. And you can get better quality using larger formats, but, again, the price is too high: "it's such a hassle to set up this whopping great piece of kit".
Hurray for MF! ;-)

Everything has been covered, but I'll just chime in and say my 8x8 inch MF prints are noticeably better than 35mm. I think 35 can get close, but it has to be handled much more carefully: VERY fine grain film tripod, cable release, etc, and a great scan job. Otherwise, 400 speed film shows very little (or no) grain with MF. Also, the lenses can be better. The Mamiya 6 50mm lens quality simply can't be duplicated, except perhaps by Leica. You simply will not, for instance, find any color fringing. Try that with most 35 lenses.

And this thread totally confirms the second reason I didn't get the MF, but did get a 4x5

MF is the great white plastic spork of modern photography.

Why do a little soubling of the negative size in an attempt to get "tonality" and "detail", when you can have the real thing. But that's not as bad as the the "mind games" and quest for the perfect game improving golf clubs that I'm hearing hear. It "slows me down". It "requires a slower more deliberate technique". And my very favorite "shooting MF forces you to slow down and think". An artist doesn't need to be "forced" to do that. The only thing you need to "slow down and think" is willpower, and perhaps, decaf. Yes, really have to stop reading the "unified forum view".

"The only thing you need to 'slow down and think' is willpower, and perhaps, decaf."

I agree, but I don't have the willpower!!! Perhaps my use of the old 6x9 folder will carry over to my DSLR and I'll start being more deliberate. It would definitely help reduce the number of images I need to cull from my DSLR.

come on guys.... this one has been debated since the various formats emerged. It is really quite simple?

WHAT STYLE / SUBJECT MATTER DO YOU WANT TO SHOOT?

I have a Canon 5D kit, a Leica M6 and a Mamiya 7II. I love them all because they perform 3 completely different tasks. No one can argue a bigger negative will resolve better than a smaller neg (either digital or analogue). For me though the greatest problem I have is time. I love the wet darkroom but my time is simply so pressed that the convenience of digital is simply too great of an advantage to ignore. To shoot truly great MF one must process negs self and rather than scan, output via a real darkroom! Costly both in time, equipment and cash. If I was a pursuing photography as a hobby and I was retired than yeah but I am not. MF is beautiful but inconvenient at times.

"Why do a little soubling of the negative size in an attempt to get "tonality" and "detail", when you can have the real thing."

As you know 6x7 is considerably more than double the size of 35mm.

As far as the "real thing" goes does anyone make a handholdable 4x5?

BTW, I love the spork quote. Anyone here seen Wall-e yet?

Depends upon the MF system you shoot with. I shoot with Leicas and have a Mamiya 7 II with a 65 mm lens. I don't use a tripod and I am not more deliberate with the MF system than I am with the Leica. I don't bang away like I own a digital camera with the Leicas, so I don't do that with the Mamiya. I enjoy having to change rolls of film because it lets me catch my breath, survey the situation, and then continue shooting. If I shoot 220, I take the shots I want to take then move on.

Most of my shooting takes place in hospital delivery rooms and nurseries; I am an attorney who specializes in adoptions and I take tons of shots of young women placing their babies for adoption. Sometimes the action is slow, other times it is quick and intense. There is no time for deliberation and artistry in many of the situations.

I use the cameras that I use because I love rangefinders and frankly, I got good deals on the cameras. Most of the time I use the Leicas because the lenses are faster and because I can shoot with Neopan 1600, something that I cannot do with the Mamiya.

I like owning a medium format camera, but for my work it is not the be all end all.

"Most of the time I use the Leicas because the lenses are faster and because I can shoot with Neopan 1600, something that I cannot do with the Mamiya."

That Neopan 1600 is a nice option.

David, to be honest, I'm probably the minority that would suggest you NOT to buy medium format. Either you save the money to buy the better fullframe (35mm) DSLR, or you'd better invest your money in at least a 4x5 camera. My analogy is like this: if you want to take photos in a fast and efficient way, DSLR is the way to go. If you really want to slow down and enjoy the results, why stop at MF. Large Format will not only gives you the benefit of high resolution/better tonality results, but you really can use the camera in a way that is very limiting in MF or 35mm, such as perspective correction etc.

Again, this is just my personal opinion, which agrees with Joseph opinion for 4x5

Not that anyone cares, but wanna know why I decided to go from 35mm to MF? Simply because I thought the cameras looked cool. I'm not kidding. I had just completed my first college intro course in b&w photography. I was still sort of on the fence as to what exactly I wanted to do next and to what extent. So one day while visiting my father in San Jose we stopped in Kamera Korner (when it was on Bascom Ave.) so I could look at a cheapy wide lens for my Pentax PZ-20. As I looked at the lens, my eyes kept going back to another display case where the Mamiya and Hassy cameras were kept. All I really knew about them was that they were hands down pro level gear. Even though I never considered one before, I gave the lens back to Larry the owner and asked to see some of the cameras in the MF case. My father owned an RB67 when they first came out so we looked at one and he gave me a run down on how they worked. The price was too high but somehow I kind of knew that this was the direction I needed to go in. I eventually got most of my gear (two complete kits and some accessories) from KEH and some local camera shows.

So yeah I can agree that changing formats or upgrading digital gear can be a usless "quick fix" to issues in ones technique or aesthetics. However at least in my case doing so simply expanded new territories to explore and experiement with. This is part of the fun. Furthermore, there is no doubt that I've improved greatly since I starte shooting my RZ. Even my first teacher when looking at some recent work of mine mentioned to me that the difference from when I was in his class was "like night and day".

I shoot only MF and the occasional LF (4x5). After going to a Bronica with a prism finder many years ago, I honestly have no use for 35mm except for travel snaps and such. (Actually, even then I rarely use 35mm because my Bronica with 75mm lens is not that heavy.) I shoot primarily portraits and other "people photography" and do so at least three or four times per week, and find that it costs me only marginally more to shoot MF than 35mm.

I disagree with the point above that if you're tempted to go MF, you might as well go LF. The two are TOTALLY different animals and shouldn't be compared in any way. I can shoot MF on the fly without a tripod with excellent results, something I could never do with a 4x5. I use LF on those occasions when I'm feeling exceptionally patient.

Please feel free to look through my web gallery at www.cheryljacobsportraits.com. I believe there are only maybe two or three 35mm shots there, and they are very easy to spot, even online. The difference in the actual prints (35mm vs MF) in person are enormously apparent at 8x10 size.

- CJ

>>>>>>As far as the "real thing" goes does anyone make a handholdable 4x5?<<<<<<<<<

Yep, check out Razzle, Alpenhause, and Fotoman to start.

http://homepages.ihug.com.au/~razzle/

http://www.alpenhause.com/

Greg - "As far as the "real thing" goes does anyone make a handholdable 4x5?"

Har har har, very funny...

But just in case there's a 1 in 1,000,000,000 chance that you are being serious...

They were called "press cameras", because they were "the" newsman's camera.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Press_camera

Many companies made them: Kalart, Burke & James, Mentor, Linhoff (my friend Bryce had a Linhoff Technika), Busch, Zeiss...

The "classic" was the Graflex corporation's "Speed Graphic", a 4x5 folder with a focal plane shutter (there were other models produced with just the leaf shutter, such as the "Crown Graphic") from produced from 1912 to 1973. Total production was about 4 million units. They made hand holdable folders from 2x3 to 5x7. You could focus a Speed Graphic via rangefinder, or on the ground glass, switch over to lens shutter or focal plane as needed. Interchangeable lenses. You could compose quickly with the wireframe viewfinder. They even had a 6 shot fast load magazine...

I used to have one, and the hat with the card that said "PRESS". OK, so I only wore that had as a "costume". I'm not that old. ;)

http://www.graflex.org/

And a cool review of the 4x5 Speed Graphic on a site called potatoe net or something...

http://photo.net/equipment/large-format/speed-graphic

Come on... Weegee, Joe Rosenthal, David Burnett, Federico Scoppa...

"As you know 6x7 is considerably more than double the size of 35mm."

Actually, it's exactly double the diagonal, to 1/10 of a mm, 86.6 vs 43.3. I've always thought that was as much a reason for choosing the size than the whole "ideal format - enlarges efficiently to 8x10" campaign.

Thomas - wow, those are cool. I didn't know something like that was going on today.

F D - always glad to meet another sporkist ;)

Thanks Thomas! The Fotoman 45PS looks great!

Joseph, thanks for the Graflex links.

"I've always thought that was as much a reason for choosing the size than the whole 'ideal format - enlarges efficiently to 8x10' campaign."

Can you expand on that?

Joseph nailed it when he said will power is what you need to slow down, and perhaps decaf. For me, I tried 35mm film in the 80s in highschool but never really worked out beyond the Program AE settings. There was some cool stuff I did but not taking a class and not fully comprehending things, well we didnt' have the internet we have today. So I'm a digital shooter that's turned to film. On a whim I bought into MF and while I say the same things like "it slows me down" (I don't drink coffee so the decaf doesn't apply) its true that will power and discipline would do the same thing. However the tool (MF) is what helped. Now, when I shoot digital, I still don't slow down but I'm getting better. ;)

Having shot 645 and now 4x5, I would steer you into Large Format over Medium format. The first time I pulled a roll of MF film out of the tank I was stunned and awed. Now I've never pulled 35mm out of the tank but I can't see anything that small so there won't the be WOW that comes with 6x7 or larger, or even 6x6 for that matter. But when you pull 4x5 out, its incredible. (assuming you got focus and everything right). How is it different/better than 35mm or digital?

I like the flow, I like that I have to and want to think about what I'm doing, what I"m shooting, why I'm shooting it. With digital its spray and pray, I can't comment in 35mm. With MF or LF, its a conscious effort. For me going to medium and large format wasn't so much about the technicals like megapixels or tonality or even range - at an artistic level I don't care about those. Its that I want to consciously experience the shot - taking it, composing it, thinking about it, developing it, and eventually - some day, printing it in a wet darkroom. Ok, maybe just a slightly damp darkroom.

My first good camera after the basic box ones was a Mamiya 500 DTL about 38 years ago. The 35 negative, to me was just too small.So,I sold it and bought 2 Mamiya c330's and a 4x5 monorail view camera. I like the large groundglass of the larger formats. I never needed the built in light meters, etc, that are found in 35 cameras. I feel that a Sekonic spot meter is alot better. A properly exposed negative in the larger formats, 6x6 and up are just as beautifull as the finished print.I got into Salted Paper and Carbon/ Carbro prints which needs the larger negative.Printing a Salted Paper outside was so much better than being indoors. The more mechanical a camera is, 4x5 and so much of medium format, makes you think more. Now,I only use 35 for Astro shots, or when I need a very large lens.That's why I bought a 75-300 lens for my Rebel Ti. Years ago, I sold my equiptment to start building string instruments. Now, I have 3 Mamiya Medium Formats outfits and a 4x5 Anniversary Speed. I will never go back to 35 in a large way. It's a fact that the less you need to enlarge the negative, the better the finer print.

I do enjoy medium format a lot. I started with a bronica etrsi. There is visible difference in resolving power of a larger negative. I've always wanted a larger format that was lighter and does not have the earth shattering mirror slap. So I got the mamiya 7.

That is my best purchase EVER. If I have to sell that to save my life, I will not, in the off chance that I did not die and have to live with the regret of selling it.

If you are coming from digital to film, there is a learning curve to knowing how different film look and feel, and also how to develop b&w film and/or shoot for the way that you develop. Shoot, develop and print is all in your hands. You will never get more control over anything in your life.

- Wen Lim www.photonaturally.com.au

"I use the Leicas because the lenses are faster and because I can shoot with Neopan 1600, something that I cannot do with the Mamiya."

Why can't you shoot Neopan 1600 with a Mamiya ?I'm able to shoot it in my Contax 645.

What sort of strange limitations does the Mamiya present?

Colin, I guess I can but I would need an adapter, no? I have a panoramic adapter for the 7 II but that is about it. If there is a way for me to shoot the Neopan 1600 on the 7 II please tell me how. You can reach me at grasslaw@gmail.com. Thanks.

Very nice thread, a bit of nostalgia and lots of good reasons to go for larger formats than 35mm. Reminds me why I am having problems parting with my Mamiya 7II even though I never use it anymore after buying a Canon 5D.

One thing that hasn't been mentioned though, is that of course you can get the same angle of view and depth of field at the same aperture with a smaller-format digital camera as on an MF or LF camera. Multiple shots and stitching. It is actually less work than doing it all through the darkroom. Making huge stitched images and then printing them small, you get much that same feel of sharpness and tonality you get from an 8x10 from a well-exposed and sharp MF negative.

Still, there is something nearly religious about putting those tack-sharp Velvia chromes from the Mamiya 7II on the light table and looking at them through a loupe. Even before you look at them through the loupe, you know it is something special, and you hold your breath as you take a closer look and see details and tonality that there yet are few scanners that can faithfully reproduce.

Depth of field matters relative to "normal" lens length.

A normal lens on a 35mm is a 50. A normal lens on an MF is a 90, which has a shallower depth of field. A head-and-shoulders lens on a 35mm is an 85 or 105. On an MF it's a 150. Huge difference. Much better for portraits. Typical head-shot lens for an MF is a 250.

And lest you say "I'll just use a 250 on my Nikon and stand further back", you would need to stand very far back indeed.

Bottom line, if you want to do portraits with shallow focus, MF has an inherent advantage.

On the other hand, if you want deep focus 35mm has the edge.

Edward Horn,

DOF does not depend on focal length as such, but on magnification and aperture.

So "I'll just use a 250 on my Nikon and stand further back" will in fact increase DOF.

If someone would want the same (narrow) DOF on 35 mm format as on MF, he could just use the same focal length lens (and the same aperture) from the same distance.
The field of view will then of course be rather different. But DOF will not.

"Why can't you shoot Neopan 1600 with a Mamiya ?I'm able to shoot it in my Contax 645."

I haven't found it in 120 anywhere. I guess I haven't looked hard enough? I pretty much buy film at my local store or Freestyle, and Freestyle doesn't carry any 1600 films in 120.

Wow, thank you everyone for all of your comments and suggestions. I think I know what you're talking about being forced to slow down and think about what you're doing. There's definitely a zen-like quality of concentration and thinking when I shoot with my fully manual 35mm film SLR vs my DSLR, and I imagine it would be even more so with MF. After thinking about it, I think I'll see a much more cost-effective improvement in my skills from forcing myself to slow down and think about what I'm doing with what I have now, instead of investing in M/F. Especially since I don't think I want to deal with the headache of buying used equipment on ebay.

Let me say though, that it will be very tough to convince myself not to splurge on a used bronica setup from keh or the like when special occasions like christmas or my birthday arise.

Thanks again, and despite this message, I still look forward to hearing what other people have to say on this thread!

I bought an RB67 about a month ago, it's bloody brilliant. It's made a world of difference to my 35mm and DSLR work already just as a result of the steadying of the process. The viewfinder is amazing. The thing was so bloody heavy though I've gone and grabbed a Mamiya C330 for travelling around with so I can have the same mellow medium format experience elsewhere.

I just need to find a vaguely portable light meter.

So I say do it! My DSLR is dead jealous as it gathers dust on the shelf.

Disclaimer, my "a" key is missing from my keyboard. Oh, so is my "q" key. my kids plucked them off.

-The itch.

If I recall my "itch" for MF gear, I took a similar approach you took. I asked questions. Looked at all the +/-. In the end, for me MF was/is a point along the path, not destination. 35, MF, LF, ULF all have their strengths. Until you know yours, you should try different options. That is, until you know how you see and work and what ultimately satisfies you, MF is just another tool along the way.

Each tool's +/- has been somewhat addressed in some way whether it is corrective movements, AF, etc. The bottomline is finding out what pleases your way of seeing the world. The compromises in each format are unique to the format. i.e. 4x5 is "slower" , but look at David Burnett's work. He mastered photojournalistic work with a 4x5...or maybe he was a master already and just decided for giggles to use the 4x5/ ektar combo. Either way, he mastered it.

Whatever. There are many diversions along the way. Its part of the process. Keep experimenting and find what you like, then stick with it and master it.

Cheryl Jacobs , Jul 02, 2008; 08:37 p.m.

I shoot only MF and the occasional LF (4x5). After going to a Bronica with a prism finder many years ago, I honestly have no use for 35mm except for travel snaps and such. (Actually, even then I rarely use 35mm because my Bronica with 75mm lens is not that heavy.)

_____________

I could have written exactly the same thing. Cheryl and I must have been separated at birth! (I even shoot bronica and 4x5). I also have no use for 35mm gear anymore, so I keep a DSLR for anything that doesn't warrant MF or LF because it's so easy to use. The problem is when a get a great shot I agonize over not having taken it with my MF gear.

Thomas Hardy , Jul 02, 2008; 09:53 p.m.

"Yep, check out Razzle, Alpenhause, and Fotoman to start."

Damn, I thought I'd be content with my old junker Mamiya RB67 and shiny new 7ii. But now I look at the Fotoman website every day since Thomas posted that! I never thought I'd get addicted to cameras.

And re John Wilson and Cheryl Jacobs, I, too, stopped using my 35mm SLR, I use my Olympic Stylus now and then, but mostly use my 7ii supplementing with my DSLR.

Be warned that unless you have a dedicated dscanner, pro-scans (for making prints) of MF negs are much more expensive than 35mm. If you do go down the MF path (I certainly recommend it), stick mainly with b/w, which you can print yourself in a darkroom.