Q: What is medium format photography?
Medium format photography includes anything larger than 35mm but smaller
than a 4''x5'' view camera.
| Most Popular Formats | More Unusual Formats |
|---|---|
|
|
|
Q: Why do medium format photography?
Because it is FUN.
The obvious main benefit is the larger negative size and ability to keep
the same image quality level with much larger enlargements:
Mamiya's Why
Size
Counts site shows the tremendous visual impact of the larger images
compared to a 35mm original. See B and H's Intro to MF
for numbers of roll-film exposures per format and comparative film size
graphics.
Q: What other benefits do MFers enjoy?
Mamiya's Why
Medium Format site lists many benefits, including:
Q: Is there someplace I can ask questions about MF?
Sure! See MF
Forum at PHOTONET for an online forum. Not only can you ask
questions, but you can browse past common questions and responses.
Check out USENET news, particularly the
rec.photo.equipment.medium-format group. Again, you will
find a constant commentary on MF topics, and have a chance to ask and
answer questions in this newsgroup.
Q: Where can I get more user to user information on MF cameras?
Check out the Medium Format
Digest archives of past issues of this wide ranging past mailing
list. See related medium format mailing lists for
specific models and topics (including reviewing their online archives).
If there is a particular hot topic you are just dying to find out
about right now, go to the online MFD archive search
engine or our own MF site search engine,
check our articles listings,
or look up a particular medium format camera.
Q: Aren't medium format cameras much more expensive than 35mm?
A study by Popular Photography magazine for similarly priced current 35mm
(Nikon..) and MF (Rollei, Hassy, Pentax..) systems came up with some
surprising conclusions. The least expensive professional system was not
the Nikon 35mm system, but rather the Pentax 6x7 MF system. The
Hasselblad system was cheaper than the Rolleiflex 6x6cm system.
See Top Ten Myths of Photography for similar
suprises.
Used medium format cameras such as TLRs can be bought for under $100 US$ on up,
and some new SLR kits can be found for little more (see Kiev 60 SLR).
You can find quite a range of budget medium format cameras. See
our best buys list for some surprisingly affordable but high quality
options in medium format!
Q: Doesn't Medium Format cost a lot more for film and developing? [11/2002]
No. In practice, the running costs of film and processing are about the same for
many of us as we switch between 35mm, medium format, and large format. We just don't shoot
as many sheets of LF film on an outing. Compared to MF, most of us shoot a lot more photos
with 35mm, including many grab shots and experimental shots, because the costs are so low per
shot. But the overall costs per day of photo outing is about the same, regardless of format.
Example Costs of One Day's Photo Outing:
5 rolls of 35mm film (24 exp) 96 shots $50 5 rolls of 120 film 60 shots $50 1 box (25 sheets) 4x5" B/W film 25 shots $50
Q: Don't you get more "keepers" from shooting 35mm than fewer shots of MF or a few LF shots?
[11/2002]
| Good Shots are Photographer Limited.. | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Format | Keeper Ratio | # shots/day | # Keepers |
| 35mm | 1/10th to 1/4th | 96 | 10-25 |
| MF | 1/4th to 1/2 | 60 | 15-30 |
| LF | 3/4th to 9/10ths | 25 | 18-23 |
The types of photos you take when shooting 35mm (action..) may be very different from what
you shoot with MF (portraits..) or LF (landscapes..). But the number of keepers you get from
any day's photo outing are probably about the same. You may spend more time ensuring that LF
shot is perfect, given the higher cost and time each shot takes. But you are only likely to
see just so many shots on any given day's shooting.
See Ten Myths of Photography for related discussion...
Q: What is a good taxonomy for medium format cameras?
Q: What kinds of photography are best done with SLRs? TLRs? View?
Rangefinders? What features are handy for each specialty?
| Subject | rangefinder | TLR | SLR | View | screen focus | leaf shutter | interch.lens | focal plane | rangefndr | swap backs | movements |
| portraits | 2 | 1 | 1 | 2 | Y | N | Y | N | X | P | N |
| animals | 1 | 1 | 1 | 3 | P | P | Y | N | X | N | N |
| children | 2 | 1 | 1 | 3 | Y | P | N | N | N | N | N |
| copying | 3 | 3 | 1 | 1 | Y | N | Y | N | N | Y | Y |
| social | 2 | 1 | 1 | 3 | Y | Y | Y | N | N | Y | N |
| architecture | 3 | 2 | 2 | 1 | Y | N | Y | N | N | Y | Y |
| sport | 1 | 3 | 2 | 3 | Y | N | Y | Y | Y | C | N |
| fast action | 1 | 3 | 2 | 3 | C | N | C | Y | Y | C | C |
| close-ups | 3 | 2 | 1 | 1 | Y | C | Y | C | X | C | Y |
| still life | 3 | 2 | 1 | 1 | Y | C | Y | C | X | P | Y |
| theatre | 1 | 2 | 2 | 3 | P | Y | Y | X | Y | C | N |
| landscape | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | Y | N | Y | N | N | P | P |
| telephoto | 3 | 3 | 1 | 1 | Y | N | Y | N | X | P | N |
In the above table, 1="a good choice", 2="usable", 3="some difficulties
in use" under camera types (view camera includes 6x9cm as well as 4x5
inches). Under features, Y=definite advantages, N=not specifically
needed, P=possibly an advantage, C=not a major consideration, and X= not
easy to use. Mr. Ray's table is a good starting point, but you should
read further to learn why each system or feature has the listed factors.
Q: How many medium format cameras are sold in the USA each year? Worldwide?
From NYIP article on MF,
it is estimated that only around 25,000 professional-level medium format cameras are
sold in the U.S. each year... Some 16,000 Japanese made (including overseas factories)
MF kits were sold in Japan in 2001, and another 32,000 were exported to the world per
JCIA statistics.
Probably a similar number of non-Japanese made
Hasselblad V series cameras and other MF pro models were also made and sold from Europe.
In the past, the Hasselblad c/m series production was circa 18,000/year. I am not sure where
Kiev MF kits fit here, because many are old stock and so not new production units. Ditto Chinese
seagull folders and TLRs. USA MF production of pro cameras would be mainly specialty
cameras like panoramic and hand-built ultrawides.
The USA market has historically been one of the largest, followed by Japan and Europe, with
China now growing rapidly as you might expect. But the overall market is somewhat down as
many pros switch to digital technologies and defer investing in MF gear during that process.
Q: What kind of improvements in print enlargeability can I expect if I
switch to various medium formats?
From Film
Size vs. Print Quality Table of West Coast Imaging Inc.:
format print 35mm 8x10" 645 11x14" 6x6 16x20" 6x7 20x24" 4x5" 30x40" 8x10" 40x50"
Naturally, these recommendations are not iron-clad, as you can get some
images to make acceptable quality enlargements beyond these nominal
guidelines. But you should see major improvements in your prints if they
are 11x14" or larger by shifting to medium format.
Q: How does medium format compare to LF today versus the past? [added 11/2002]
Today, a 6x7cm camera working within the limits of today's better color films can achieve
results that would have required a 4x5" camera with the color films available in the 1970s,
and a 5x7" camera with the color films of the 1950s (see Roger Hicks and Frances Schultz's
Medium and Large Format Handbook, p.26).
Besides easier and faster handling, the 6x7cm medium format camera has lower running
costs for film, processing, storage, mounting and display of negatives and slides and so on.
MF lenses with similar coverage have more depth of field than LF lenses of similar coverage.
MF lenses are usually used at faster apertures than LF lenses too. Specialty lenses such as
fisheyes are available in MF which you won't find in LF.
So a number of LF users have found that medium format offers some attractive advantages for
their needs, along with enough quality to satisfy their clients needs at lower costs. As
MF films continue to improve, MF will presumably become even more attractive to users.
From scientific researcher's Table:
Consumer Digital Camera 0.365 megapixels Amateur 1kX1k " " 1.05 megapixels Pro 4kX4x " " 16.77 megapixels 35mm fast film 22.11 megapixel equiv. 35mm medium speed film 54 megapixel equiv. 35mm slow speed film 124.76 megapixel equiv.
Ratio'd for medium formats (using actual film sizes e.g., 56mmx56mm
for 6x6cm..):
area ratio megapixel 16.7megapixel how one 16.7Mp chip
format to 35mm equivalent chip equivalents compares as % film
6x4.5cm 2.9:1 364 Mp 21.7 times 4.6%
6x6cm 3.6:1 453 Mp 27.0 times 3.7%
6x7cm 4.5:1 566 Mp 33.8 times 3%
6x9cm 5.3:1 633 Mp 39.6 times 2.5%
In other words, even with the new Foveon 16.7 megapixel CMOS chip or the
older $55,000 4kx4k CCD medium format digital backs, film still has lots
more image information. A 6x7cm slow speed color film image is equivalent
to a 566 megapixel CCD chip (!), which is 33.8 times the capacity of the
4kx4k 16.7 megapixel superchips of today. Stated another way, the best
16.7 megapixel chip cameras are only getting about 3% of the 566 megapixel
equivalent image data of a 6x7cm slow film image. Since most of today's
better pro digital cameras are circa 3 megapixels, even a 6x4.5cm image
will have over a hundred times more image data than a multi-kilobuck
digital camera.
Q:
What are the actual sizes and ratios of film and U.S. paper
enlargements?
|
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Q: You mean the ratios are right, but the actual film size can vary?
You may be surprised to find that a 6x9cm images is really only
approximately 56mm by 82mm in size. I was! But the ratio is what's
important, not the actual film size (thanks to John Sparks for that
observation!). The ratios of 6x6cm and 6x9cm and so on are correct, even
if the actual film is smaller due to the 56mm widths used of the 6 cm wide
film strip. The ratios are used in darkroom work, in selecting paper sizes
and cropping images. It is important if the ratio is 2 to 3 or 4 to 5 in
selecting paper sizes and cropping factors. But the actual size variations
are easily adjusted during enlargement by varying the magnification and
enlarger height. The math is easier with 6x9cm than 56x82mm, right?
;-)
Q: Why do the actual film image sizes vary so much?
The original glass plates were made on hand-cut window glass (slightly
varying sizes), measured in inches (U.K.), with quarter plates being
one-fourth of a full sized pane of glass and so on. Sheet film standards
were also variable, with 2.25" by 3.25" used in the USA (slightly
cropped), while Europeans used 6x9cm (or 2.5" X 3.5") [thanks to Tony Oresteen]. Conversion round-offs to and from
metric units also account for some variations in the listings seen for
film and cameras.
But the cameras themselves can vary, especially for odd-ball formats such
as panoramic cameras. One Veriwide 100 cameras
model has nearly a full centimeter larger film image than a later version!
Since the lens in both cases is a 47mm super-angulon, you are getting a
bit more coverage with one model than the later variant. Neither of the
two most popular 6x17cm cameras are exactly 17cm in length; one is 2
millimeters shorter, the other is 2 mm longer. Surprise!
Compare:
Fuji G617: 55 x 168 mm
Linhof Technorama: 56 x 172 mm
Brooks Veriwide 100 Panoramic: 56 x 80+mm
Plaubel Veriwide 100 Panoramic: 56 x 90+mm
Q: What is the ideal format for medium format? Square?
Rectangular?
Whatever format you need to best create and express your next image is
'ideal'.
Unfortunately, MFers waste much time arguing about which format is the best.
By comparison, check out any art gallery or art museum. You will note
that the artists have cut the canvas to fit the needs of the artist and
their art. I
suggest that both photographic film and paper is easily cut to match your
artistic needs. Consequently, there is no one best format overall, or we
would all agree on it, and we don't.
Study will show that many of the rectangular formats relate directly or
closely to enlarging images onto standard paper sizes such as 20''x24''
or 8''x10''. Folks argue that therefore they lose the least image area to
cropping by using this or that format with the specified standard paper size.
Since I shoot mostly slides, this argument has never appealed to me much ;-).
However, the argument is easily countered by saying you use the next
larger size of paper. Then again, why should you shoot and compose shots
to match some arbitrary paper size?
The square format takes getting used to, but it has its own power and
appeal. Check out the Hasselblad booklet titled ''Square Composition''
for some good visual and verbal arguments in support of this format.
Again, what is wrong with cutting and mounting paper in a square, if the
image warrants it? But the usual argument in favor of square format is
that you don't have to turn your camera sideways, unlike a rectangular
format with different horizontal and vertical dimensions. Moreover, you
can later crop the photo to be a rectangular composition if you like,
either horizontally or vertically. The major reason I like square format
is that I can crop out of the top of the frame, rather than just the center as
with 6x4.5cm cameras. In effect, this trick provides a shift
lens capability to fix converging verticals in my
cityscape shots compared to 6x4.5cm cameras.
I recall reading in a book on the Rolleiflex TLR (Wildi?) that the
enlarger was the photographer's replacement for interchangeable lenses.
That is handy, since there are so few zoom lenses for MF owners and users.
The larger image does permit considerable blowup while retaining both
artistic and technical quality control. This strength of MF use is
often lost if you treat the larger negative as if it were a 35mm
limited real estate image.
Depends on the photographer and their needs and color preferences, plus
issues like processing and availability. From a survey of professional
photographers by the British Journal of Photography reported in PPN
of July 27, 2001:
| fuji | 91 |
| kodak | 74 |
| ilford | 30 |
| agfa | 11 |
| konica | 4 |
| other | 95 |
| total= | 305 |
For Hasselblad C lenses, from the Hasselblad Compendium per posting:
24mm f3.5 F Distagon - about 50 0.01% 30mm f3.5 F Distagon C - under 1000 0.24% 40mm f4 Distagon C - approx. 9,000 2.16% 50mm f4 Distagon C - approx. 75,000 18.03% 80mm f2.8 C Planar - approx. 210,000 50.47% 120mm f5.6 S-Planar - approx. 14,000 3.36% 150mm f4 Sonnar C - approx. 70,000 16.82% 250mm f5.6 Sonnar C - approx. 30,000 7.21% 350mm f5.6 Tele-Tessar C - approx. 3,000 0.72% 500mm f8 Tele-Tessar C - approx. 4,000 0.96%
In other words, fisheyes are only 0.25% of sales, while over half the lenses are the humble 80mm. While only 2% are very wide 40mm lenses, remember that Hasselblad also offers a 38mm Biogon Superwide. The 120mm is a macro lens, while the long telephotos beyond 250mm are under 2% of sales!. Some 85%+ of the Hasselblad C lenses are the traditional 3 lens kit of 50mm, 80mm, and 150mm. See our lenses sold pages for more analysis.
Q: Why are MF lenses so expensive?
Some say it is all a conspiracy. For example, Hasselblad is rumored to
sell their bodies for only a 5% markup to get you locked into their lens
line. To make up for lost profits, they have to charge you a lot more for
the accessories and especially the lenses. This conspiracy works
because you have few or no alternate sources for MF lenses.
A better answer is that the medium format market is rather small and
specialized, so few third party lens makers make medium format lenses.
Medium format lenses are physically larger and therefore harder to correct
optically. Many lenses have leaf shutters built-in, adding considerably to
their costs. Finally, the professional market demands the highest quality
lenses regardless of cost.
Q: Where can I see a listing of currently manufactured medium format
cameras?
See Current Medium Format Cameras
listing for Alpa, Bronica, Fuji, Hasselblad, Horseman, Kiev, Linhof,
Mamiya, Noblex, Pentax, Rollei, Teamwork and V-Pan medium format
cameras.
Q: What about current MF lenses?
See Hasselblad lens MTF charts
See Kiev 88, Kiev 60
(Pentacon) lenses
See Mamiya RF
Lenses
See Rollei
Lenses
See Tamron/Bronica's How to
Buy A Lens
For a listing of lenses and (B&H USA discount) prices, our lens availability tables are handy too.
Q: What are the weaknesses of Medium Format Photography?
Medium format cameras aren't the ideal answer to every photographic problem.
If you work at it, you can probably coax some medium format camera to
deliver almost any kind of image. But the cost of this solution may be
much higher and less flexible or advantageous than a solution based on
another format such as 35mm or 4x5.
In my Ten Myths of Photography article
I point out that to be all the photographer you can be, you have to have
experience and knowledge of the strengths and weaknesses of each major
format. Getting that varied format experience is part of the (fun!)
process of growing as a photographer.
Traditionally, 35mm is viewed as a
candid photography medium, medium format has strengths in portraiture and
studio work, and the view camera is supreme for architectural work and
still-life work (e.g., food photography).
If you want to do candid low
light theatre photography, be sure your needs can't be met with a less
expensive
35mm camera with faster lenses and films before jumping to medium format.
If you want to do perspective control work in architecture, look
carefully at view camera strengths before opting for a medium format
solution. You may be able to find a medium format solution, but my guess
is that it will be more expensive and less functional than a more ideal
format solution.
Q. What about lens speed, specifically the slow speed of many medium format lenses? [6/2002]
Quoting Roger Hicks (Medium and Large Format Photography, p.20):
with ilford 3200 delta, an 8x10" print off 6x7cm looks surprisingly
similar to an 8x10" print off 35mm 100 delta...
Medium format users trade off larger negative size for slower lenses compared to some
35mm offerings. So an 80mm f/2.8 lens used with 400 ISO/ASA film will usually look at
least as good or better than a 50mm f/1.4 fast lens used with
100 ISO/ASA film. The medium format negative will have smoother tonality, better detail
in highlights and shadow areas, and modest impact from higher speed films used (e.g., grain).
Not all medium format lenses are slow. Mamiya has a f/1.9 lens for its Mamiya 645 SLRs.
Hasselblad has a 110mm f/2 telephoto for its focal plane bodies (6x6cm). The Norita SLR
has a 80mm f/2.0 lens that is surprisingly sharp wide open and low cost (6x6cm). The older
Bronica S2/EC series had a fast and sharp 80mm f/2.4 normal lens, and even a 135mm f/2.3
Komura telephoto (if a bit soft wide open, it works well as a portrait telephoto). Kiev
users have a modest cost 180mm f/2.8 and so on.
What may not be obvious from the above is that these fast lenses are all on the focal plane
shutter bodies. The speed of lenses incorporating an internal leaf shutter has to be limited
due to the small size of those leaf shutters. For example, the Hasselblad F (focal plane)
series lenses tended to be a stop faster than similar lenses by Zeiss for the leaf shutter
bodies.
Q: What about ultrawide and very wide MF lenses for SLR users?
[added 4/21/99]
Most 35mm SLR users who take up medium format are shocked to learn
that
there are few or no ultrawide angle rectilinear lenses (20mm and under
on 35mm SLR equiv.) available for most medium format SLR camera systems.
The Pentax 67/6x7 offers 35mm f/4.5 fisheye plus 45mm f/4 and 55mm lenses
on a 6x7cm format body.
You will notice the absence of 14mm through
20mm rectilinear 35mm SLR lens equivalents on most medium format
camera lens lines! A few new specialty lenses can provide such extreme
coverage on 6x9cm miniview cameras, but they are rather more expensive than 35mm
SLR equivalents (e.g., 35mm rodenstock).
The Kiev cameras offer the broadest line of medium format shift lenses
(45/55/65mm)
and a low cost fisheye (30mm) plus wide angle lenses (45mm and 65mm) in a
low cost current production camera body. Conversely, the older Bronica
S2/EC series has the most choice in affordable wide angle optics in the 40mm/45mm/50mm
range.
The 30mm nikkor fisheye for Bronica S2/EC is rare, but you can
adapt the low cost Kiev 30mm fisheye to the Bronica lens mount (see
fisheye projects). You can often
find very good buys in Bronica 45mm Komura and 50mm f/3.5 lenses.
You can also buy 30mm fisheye lenses for Hasselblad and Rollei SL/6k, but
the prices are even more shocking than the 40mm lens costs! While
the Schneider 40mm and Zeiss 50mm med. fmt. lenses for the older
Exakta 66 mount cameras are well regarded, they are relatively rare
and pricey in the USA too.
Only with the Kowa 6/66 leaf shutter 40mm and Norita (focal plane) 40mm
lenses do we see 40mm lenses under $1,000 US. By comparison, the 40mm
nikkor and zenzanon Bronica S2/EC lenses seem cheap at used prices from
$400-600+ US.
But the Kiev lenses (often clones of
Zeiss designs) are a best-buy in very wide medium format optics at
Kalimex's prices as shown above! You can afford to buy the camera (e.g.,
$175 for Kiev-60) to use the 30mm fisheye lens.
We haven't touched on a wide variety of press and view camera options,
using various wide angle view camera lenses here. Nor have we looked at
panoramic or other swing lens cameras that offer ultrawide lens
equivalent performance, albeit with various flavors and kinds of distortions.
But these cameras are more specialized and expensive than those MF SLRs we
list above. You can also find a few specialty fixed ultrawide cameras such
as the Veriwide 100.
However, you can cheat by using wide and ultra-wide and even fisheye
adapters that fit on the front of the normal lens and other optics. These
front-of-the-lens adapters mount on the filter thread of your normal
lens. Using them, you get various wider angle effects (equiv. to .18x
(fisheye adapter), .42x (ultrawide), .60x, and .75x being most common).
0.18X 14mm equiv. ($50-100+)
0.42X 32mm equiv. ($50+)
0.60X 45mm equiv. ($30+)
0.75X 55mm equiv. ($30+ with 1.25x telephoto adapter)
As you can see, a relatively low cost adapter can do a lot to widen
your view, albeit at some lost of edge sharpness and overall contrast and
flare resistance.
See Fisheye and ultrawide adapter pages for
sample photos and more details.
In short, ultrawide rectilinear lenses are generally unavailable on popular
medium format SLR systems. This reality helps explain the popularity of
sundry view cameras with wide angle lenses and panoramic cameras in med. fmt.
If you are a wide angle fan(atic), you may want to price out the cost of
even a relatively modest very wide angle set of lens(es) for your dream
med. fmt. SLR!
Q: What about telephotos?
Again, 35mm SLR users are often surprised at the lack of longer telephoto
equivalents for medium format cameras. Fortunately, it is relatively easy
to modify and adapt telescopes and other optics to medium format use
where coverage permits. However, prime lenses beyond 500mm f/8 are pricey
and rare (while the Rollei Sl/6k 500mm f/8 prime lists for $20,000 US!).
You can use the 2/3rds ratio of the normal lenses (50mm on 35mm SLR/75mm on
6x6cm SLR) to observe another unhappy effect of long telephoto lenses on
medium format. They act like shorter lenses on 35mm SLRs. In other words,
a 500mm f/8 lens on 6x6cm acts like a (500x2)/3 or 335mm lens on 35mm SLR
(by usage, as aspect ratios vary). You have the bulk of a true 500mm lens
but get an image more similar to a 300-350mm lens on 35mm SLR. Zapped
again!
So you have the medium format paradox. Longer telephoto lenses for
Med. Fmt. SLRS are
not as long as you would expect, while ultrawide angle lenses are not
available (below the equivalent of 21mm on a 35mm SLR).
So you are
generally stuck in the middle, in a range that corresponds to a 21mm to
300+ mm lens equiv. on a 35mm SLR. Actually, most medium format SLR users
have only three lenses - 50/75/150 or 200mm, corresponding to a 35mm SLR
user 28mm/50mm/100 or 135mm lens kit.
However, don't forget that
medium format negatives can easily be blown up significantly, using your
enlarger as a substitute for the rare and very pricey med. fmt. zoom lenses.
Similarly, new developments in image manipulation and scanning may create
a revolution in ultrawide angle effects from medium format cameras. Using
scanners, high resolution digital images can be created from medium
format negatives (although the scanners are currently quite expensive for
medium format versus the more popular and smaller 35mm format). The
software can remove (or create) wide angle distortions, and then "stitch"
the image together. The result is a single panoramic image that greatly
resembles what an ultrawide angle lens would produce on medium format, if
such a lens existed!
You can also use various shift lenses to take multiple images, and then
"stitch" these together either digitally or with your enlarger.
Unfortunately, most shift or tilt/shift lenses for medium format are more
expensive than many new cars! The major exception is the Kiev 88 series
shift lenses at 45mm, 55mm, and 65mm (for $800-900 US respectively direct
from Kalimex). See homebrew shift lens
pages for details and related links to medium format shift lenses. Our
telephoto lenses pages also have many handy tips
and pointers.
Q: Why should one carefully evaluate cost and availability of wide
angle lenses versus telephotos lenses for a Med Fmt SLR System?
While you can adapt longer lenses and telescopes for more telephoto
effects, you can't readily find wider angle lenses for use on your medium
format cameras.
What about borrowing or adapting wide angle lenses from view cameras?
Most wide angle lenses used on view cameras such as
the 47mm super angulon and 65mm to 90mm super/angulon lenses and their
equivalents don't help, even if you can figure out a way to mount them on
your medium format SLR camera. Since most of these wide angle view camera
lenses are not retrofocus designs, you can't mount them on typical med.
fmt. lens registration distances (circa 75-80+ mm for Hasselblad/Kiev,
100+mm for Bronica/Rollei). Even if you can, you don't gain much, as a
47mm super angulon which is very, very wide on a 4x5 camera is just
modestly wide on a 6x6cm format SLR.
This fact explains why so many folks switch to 4x5 or similar view or
press cameras using rollfilm backs and wide angle lenses to achieve
ultrawide and panoramic effects. These same view camera ultra-wide angle
lenses are also useful with specialty panoramic cameras. But they aren't
all that great or useful for mounting or adapting to 6x6cm SLRs.
In short, evaluate the depth and cost of the wide and very wide
angle lenses for your dream medium format SLR system carefully. Prices go
up very fast for very wide and very telephoto lenses (beyond 50mm and
200mm med. fmt. lenses respectively). Telephoto lenses may be less of a
problem, as adapters may make it possible to use telephoto lenses and
telescopes with sufficient coverage. For very wide angle lenses, you
are often limited to the pricey ones built for your system, or
adaptable to it.
For more on adapting lenses, see our homebrew
lenses pages.
Kostinsky's effect is result of the developer being exhausted between two
close, heavily exposed points, resulting in under-development in the areas
closest to each point. The result is the points appear to move apart. So
the distance between two heavily exposed points seems to increase in the
print or slide. Conversely, two clear spots in the background seem to move
together. The result is a less distinct image as the clear areas get
bigger and farther apart, and the edges of subjects get driven closer
together. This effect reduces the distinctness of the edges in an image,
either in print or on slides. The key here is that this effect is most
pronounced in smaller formats, and less noticeable in larger formats. So
using medium format versus 35mm miniature format results in a crisper
image due to the Kostinsky effect. The same is true of large format versus
medium format.
[ source: Nature Photography, Launchbury,
Keith, Focal Press, Boston, 1983, pp.118-9.]
Medium format photographers often cite greater shadow detail and accutance
from the larger format. These effects are real, and easily demonstrated.
The greater enlargeability and smaller resulting grain size of medium
format is only one of the benefits of going to the larger formats.
Q: Why is area rather than linear measures important in medium format
prints?
The medium format image (6x7cm) will be roughly twice as large on film as
the same relative size image on 35mm film. But the object will be roughly
five times the area on the medium format image. Translated into 10 micron
sized grains, the 0.1mm sized object on 35mm will occupy circa 65 grains,
while the circa 0.2mm sized object on 6x7cm will occupy circa 316
grains. With five times more points, the image on medium format is much
more precisely defined.
The tonal range from dark to light will be about the same for the same
subject, lighting, film, and developing. But the medium format image will
have five times as many film grains, enabling it to reflect a broader
range of middle tones. Naturally, a 4x5" negative would produce even more
range in the middle tones and shadow detail too.
[ source: Nature Photography, Launchbury,
Keith, Focal Press, Boston, 1983, pp.118-9.]
[Ed. note: I thought this was well worth sharing...]
From: [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: 35mm vs. medium format
Date: Sat, 21 Feb 1998
"Sandy" [email protected] wrote:
I'd like some advice.
Considering using med.format for landscape and maybe some portrait work.
Currently use an (ancient but reliable) F3. What are the differences I'd
notice going from 35mm to Med.format. I know that quality is better because
of the neg. size and that is the extent of my (pitiful) photographic
knowledge.
Thanks plenty for your advice.
Al
Al,
There are people who make the switch to medium format because of
curiousity and those who make the switch do to a planned out reason or
need . For the curious minded type I would suggest a low cost entry
with a simple twin lens that shoots 120 film and see if you like what
you get, if you like it keep it or move on to more suited equipment.I
state this because a few people try medium and actually don't like
what they see( ie: the results aren't what they expected) .
For the people with a specific need , I would suggest renting a
couple of different systems and make a consious dissision after
sorting out the neccessities .Serious money can be wasted on something
that doesn't quite meet the need.
Generally speaking , what you can expect from medium format over 35mm
is even tonal gradation from highlight to shadow, more shadow detail
in both senic and portraiture as well as a creamy smoothness in skin
tones with portraiture.It has been my experience that while a
respectable enlargement- portrait can be made with either format ,
medium format portrait detail shines through with ease while the 35mm
. is more of a chore for slightly lesser results . I am not speaking
of composition here in terms of pose but rather about technicality
reguarding light setup results and general clothing and complexion
smoothness and detail. Not only do I find this to be the case but the
difference holds out in larger sized enlargements .I find that 11x14
or 16x20 enlargments are simply stunning in medium format , whereas in
35 mm. contrast is banging you over the head or image quality has
begun to degrade when attempting to soften up the image.I never really
had much luck with super quality larger sized portraits in 35 mm. By
contrast in medium format some portraits seem as though the subject
might walk off the wall and carry on a conversation with someone !
Some people say that medium format doesn't shine until it's enlarged
very large but I say the detail is there anyway if it can withstand
enlarging so readily .
As to scenic pictures the first noticable difference is a percieved
increase in sharpness with more even tonality changes from shadow
areas to well lit areas and a noticable presence of details in the
shadow areas as well as color detail before the need for filtration.
Scenics such as mountains with cloud cover and deep or dark gloomy
water scenes show detail in the depths of the scene that may not have
shown in a smaller format. Gentle gradation from various toned clouds
to blue sky comes through more readily. Couple the already existing
detail with the ability to custom work the bigger neg. and what would
be possitively unatainable from smaller negs. can be had.
While to me all stated above is obviously noticable even in smaller
prints, in some cases when delving into medium format others seem to
think otherwise.Some people are taken back by the difference in depth
of field for instance. Let me state that a good lab is parimount for
good results and also if you take lousy pictures to begin with medium
format won't bail you out. It should be understood that some people
just like the image results of 35 mm and thats that, they try medium
format and for one reason or another don't like what they see or don't
like handling the equipment or whatever but they go back to 35mm. and
thats fine. Other people see both formats as the needed tools for
various situations, I fit in with this catagory , but if I had to
unload something and keep the other, most assuradly the 35mm stuff
would go first.
Good luck with your new found interest and hang on if the medium
format bug bites ,
David Grabowski
From: [email protected] (Lesaus)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Depth of field
Date: 1 Mar 1998
Monaghan) writes:
Many MFers don't realize that you have a lot less DOF for equivalent
lenses in medium format than on 35mm - it's a medium format dirty secret
You do lose two stops of depth for the same angle of view at the
same f-stop; eg: f11 with a 28mm 35 requires f22 with a 55mm 6x7.
This becomes a problem if you need f22 with 35mm, which
translates to f45 in 6x7 and your 6x7 lens only stops down to f22!
Not only that, with a 28mm 35 you can hyperfocal focus down to
2 feet at f22, whereas my 55mm 6x7 at f22 is good only from 5 feet
to infinity. This does affect composition considerations, especially
if you shoot the same comp with both formats. But those 6x7
transparencies blow away the 35mm version every time!
Ed Saus at [email protected]
rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
From: Donald Farra [email protected]
[1] Re: MF focal lengths
Date: Mon Mar 09 1998
In a nutshell it a ratio of the diagonal of the film format. Or some use the ratio to achieve a standard print size like an 8x10 (they assume the format ratio after cropping the negative to make that print), for example: 35mm for an 8x10 is 24x30mm (720mm) set as single unit of one for comparison to medium formats listed below: 6x4.5 40x50mm (2000mm) mag ratio 2.77X 6x6 44x55mm (2420mm) mag ratio 3.36X 6x7 56x69.5mm (3892mm) mag ratio 5.40X 6x9 56x69.5mm (3892mm) mag ratio 5.40X In any case this will give you a ballpark figure. Or you can use the following estimates: 35mm format: 24mm, 50mm, 100mm, 150mm, 200mm 6x4.5 or 6x6 format: 35mm/45mm, 75mm/80mm, 150mm, 200mm/225mm, 300mm 6x7 format: 45mm, 90mm, 180mm, 270mm, 360mm I this helps, Don
From: [email protected] Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format Subject: Re: To square or not to square? Date: Wed, 18 Mar 1998 I find there may be a 3rd reason to shoot square: slide projection. I know this is a very marginal activity, especially for MF users, but square slides fill up the screen completely, avoiding the blackout of the sides of the screen, and avoiding the usually painful transition between landscape and portrait oriented slides. When you view the square slide on the screen, I find you usually "filter" it yourself as a spectator, like in real life, seeing some subjects as "high" and others as "wide". I personnaly would have liked the 4x4 cm "magic slide" to have become the "std" small format...
rec.photo.equipment.medium-format From: [email protected] (NYCFoto) [1] Re: To square or not to square? Date: Mon Mar 23 1998 One point regarding the importance of after shooting croppability. Most professionals are not able to fully crop in the camera because the art director usually needs room for bleed and for the possibility that they may have a type or layout change and need to crop the image after it's been taken so you always need to give them a little more room. You really don't have that many crop options with a 35mm compared to a MF.
rec.photo.equipment.large-format
From: [email protected] (AR7500)
[1] Huge LF Catalog
Date: Wed May 06 1998
I ordered a 4x5 enlarger from B and H a few months ago which, I suppose,
is why they sent me their new large and medium format catalog. It's about
an inch thick and contains writeups on many LF cameras, lens and
accessories. Sure, they are written by the manufacturers, not independent
reviewers, but at least there's information to consider. If you didn't
get one, you might contact B and H for a copy. Art
rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
From: [email protected] (John Sparks)
[1] Re: Fuji 6x4.5 and 6x7
Date: Tue May 12 1998
It looks like you don't realize that 6x4.5, 6x6 and 6x7 all use exactly
the same film (as do other formats like 6x9, 6x12 and 6x17). This is
120 film that is 6cm wide (gives negative size of 55 or 56mm). The
length of the negative and thus the number of frames per roll varies
with the format. You get 15 (or with a few cameras like the newest Fuji
autofocus 16) frames of 6x4.5, 12 frames of 6x6 or 10 frames of 6x7.
You can figure your costs from this. Sometimes print film developing is
priced only by the number of prints or just a minor charge for the roll
so print film prices will be less affected by format on a per frame
basis than transparency films.
John Sparks
From: Chris Patti [email protected]
Subject: Response to Depth of Field "Loss" in Medium Format
Date: 1998-06-02
Re Lacey's point about the larger circle of confusion compensating for
"loss" of depth of field: Maybe someone can help me here, but as I
recall, when you run the calculations, even if you are enlarging to the
same size print (say 8x10), the larger "COC" factor for the larger format
size only compensates for 1/2 of your "loss" of depth of field (keeping
aperture and field of view constant). So you "lose" depth of field in
going to MF, even if you are not making bigger prints. And, after all,
one of the reasons to move from 35 to MF is so you can make bigger prints.
The real bottom line here (for me anyway) is that if you are trying to
squeeze out the most depth of field (like if you're in love with those
dramatic close foreground/infinity background landscapes) moving from 35mm
to a larger format (at least without camera movements) has a substantial
drawback.
rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
From: Bruce McLaughlin [email protected]
[1] Re: TLR Sharpness/DOF
Date: Sat Jun 06 1998
"I'll go shoot some more B and W (get glossy paper that way), but I started
to
wonder if DOF at F/16 in MF would be different than what I expect in
35mm....(maybe a dumb question..)"
If you arrange for the same image size on film for medium format and 35
mm the DOF is the same. Medium format is not the culprit. However,
with the larger negative size you tend to want a larger image size on
film than on 35mm. Otherwise you are not gaining the benefits of the
larger film area. Unfortunately, whether you achieve that larger image
size on film with a longer lens than on the 35mm camera or by getting
closer to the subject, the depth of field will be less. That is just an
optical fact of life. That is why medium and larger format
photographers tend to use smaller lens stops than their 35mm brethren
for the same types of subjects. They get larger images on film which
then require less enlargement at the printing stage but they pay for
that with less DOF.
rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
From: [email protected] (CWood 7000)
[1] Re: Whats the big deal with medium format anyway
Date: Fri Jun 12 1998
In a nutshell: 35mm is used professionally for stock photography, print
reproduction in magazine formats, photojournalism, and personal
point/shoot family/travel stuff.
Medium format is used professionally for most of the above as well as well
as studio/location product/model shots and often for high quality photo
gallery work.
Because of the frame size medium format provides extended reproduction
quality beyond that of 35mm.
From: Donald Farra [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Medium format? speaker's corner- Long
Date: Sat, 21 Mar 1998
No doubt you have read some on going threads on the merits of medium
format vs 35 mm format. And you maybe wondering why have any discussion
at all on the subject. Well when you own only a 35 mm camera and you
paid good money for it you want to rationalize the purchase and
eliminate any other choices, including its nearest cousin medium format.
So the first thing you will claim is for a certain size print the 35 mm
is equal to or better than medium format sourced prints. Well lets take
a look at that claim, on the surface it would seem true that for a given
lens and film resolution 35 mm can produce prints that are equal to
medium format prints. Assuming that the human eye has limitations as to
how much it can resolve at the closest viewing distance. So for person
with poor eyesight two prints in the comparison could appear the same,
but for another with better eyesight there could be a major difference.
There are many factors as I will go into later.
But this could explain some of the claims made by individuals who claim
no difference at any print size.
In my opinion one could say that as the film resolution goes up the
degree of magnification also can go up, until the lens resolution
ceiling is reached at which point the print starts to appear to the
observer, at close range, as unsharp. Of course the lens and the film
resolution limitations can be reversed and the film can limit the
magnification of the negative.
Now it is true that 35 mm lenses in general are sharper than their
medium format cousins, but not by much. And when you consider that you
have to use the whole negative and that the sharpness drops off on the
corners 35 mm lenses, and they lose even more margin. So we would only
consider the 35 mm lens when stopped down for comparisons. And there
goes the 35 mm fast lens advantage.
Where does this leave us? The film. Assuming the resolution and grain
size of any given film is the same for 35 mm and medium format. And
that most of the 35 mm films are available for medium format, we can
eliminate the film advantage.
This brings us full circle back to the magnification of the negative as
major limiting factor of particular format. For any given print size
the magnification is a ratio of negative format ratio to the prints
ratio and area.
For example the 6x7 negative is actually 56 mm x 69.5 mm, whereas the 35
mm negative is 24 mm x 30 mm to create an 8x10 inch print. In this
example the 6x7 negative is 5.4 times larger than the 35 mm format. In
simple terms the 6x7 negative can enlarged 5.4 times that of a 35 mm
negative given the variables such as len and film resolution are the
same.
But wait a minute isn't the 35mm negative are a little sharper than
medium format ? Yes, but only a little sharper and when the film
becomes the limiting factor that difference disappears. We have to
remember that not of our subjects have a 1000:1 contrast ratio, nor do
we shoot with tech pan all the time. So for the most part as soon as you
step up the film speed the 35 mm lens sharpness advantage starts to
erode.
Side note: Since most 35 mm users hand hold their cameras and medium
format shooter tend to use a tripod I would venture to guess the 35 mm
sharpness advantage is further eroded, unless the 35 mm shooter is using
fast film or using electronic flash. Enough such that the camera
movement completely is eliminated.
Now where does all this leave us? Basically the larger the negative the
better the print or final image. Unless grain is desired, the larger
the negative the smaller the grain will appear on any given print size
in a comparison of the two formats.
Wait a minute, is medium format worth it if you are only making 8x10
prints? It depends on your level of satisfaction. Are you OK with 35
mm results, then the answer is obviously no. But if you not satisfied
with the 35 mm results then the answer is yes.
Now what do you expect to hear as an answer when such a question is
posted in the medium format group? It doesn't take a JPL rocket
scientist to figure that one out.
Wait a minute, does this mean you only shoot medium format? Of course
not, 35 mm has its place and I own a couple of them myself. It is light
weight, quiet, easy to use and for some the auto focus & exposure
systems with a great selection of lenses, makes it a camera system
/format to own. But I would have to say it is a jack of all trades but
master of none.
Wait a minute, is medium format the end all of all cameras? Of course
not, it to has its limitations as any 4x5 owner would tell you. But in
my opinion, you will not as much a difference moving from medium format
to 4x5 as you would 35mm to medium format.
My bottom line is results and are you happy with your results. If you
happy and you know it, clap your hands, as the song goes. But if are
not and you know it seek out something better either within yourself of
the equipment you use.
I still believe the greatest investment you can make to improve your
photography is your mind. That many equipment limitations are overcome
with it, and the all the equipment in the world cannot work without it.
In time I hope we all will realize that the greatest limitation to
producing great shots is not the camera but what is behind it. That is
why I like this group and the Web in general, there are so many ideas
out here and so many opinions that help whose of us who know so little,
and that includes me.
Ok, I got that out of my sytem and I am off the soap box.
Don
From: "Eugene A. Pallat" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Medium format? speaker's corner- Long
Date: 22 Mar 1998
Oops - let's keep the arithmetic straight. 5.4 times the area yes, but you
don't enlarge the 35mm 5.4 times. You enlarge it 2.33 times more.
Enlargement ratio is linear. If I go from an 8x10 print to a 16x20, I
increase the enlargement 2 to 1, not 4 to 1 which is the difference in
area. The ratios in areas determine the difference is exposure when making
the print.
> But wait a minute isn't the 35mm negative are a little sharper than > medium format ? Yes, but only a little sharper and when the film > becomes the limiting factor that difference disappears.
Quite true. 20 (?) years ago, I saw some data on lens resolution on both
35 and MF lenses. The MF resolution of the MF lenses was very close to
many of the 35s.
> Side note: Since most 35 mm users hand hold their cameras and medium > format shooter tend to use a tripod I would venture to guess the 35 mm > sharpness advantage is further eroded, unless the 35 mm shooter is using > fast film or using electronic flash. Enough such that the camera > movement completely is eliminated.
And of course LF cameras are virtually all used on tripods and no mirror
slap!
I've taken 1/8 to 1/2 second handheld shots with a 35 in low light, but was
_very_ careful with the technique. My light source waa a Coleman lantern
10 feet away.
It's the old saying that it isn't the equipment that makes a good picture,
but the person taking it. Even AA made some interesting prints with
Polaroid.
Gene [email protected]
Orion Data Systems
From: [email protected] (DCJPhtgrfy)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Medium format? speaker's corner- Long
Date: 22 Mar 1998
As long as the speaker is consistent with his perspective, he is correct. A
negative that is 5.4 times the area of 35mm will produce a print that is 5.4
times the area of that produced from 35mm, and still maintain the resolution,
grain, etc.
See http://members.aol.com/DCJPhtgrfy/formats.html
DCJ
From: BobE [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Medium format? speaker's corner- Long
Date: Sat, 21 Mar 1998
I have noticed that most of the time people view snap shot prints up to
about 5 X 7 by holding them at a normal reading distance. Larger
prints are viewed at greater and greater distances - more or less
proportional their the size.
That may explain why MF is considered the ideal compromise in film size
if larger prints are to be made. The format size (35 vs MF or LF)
doesn't matter for the smaller prints while the most common large sizes
appear sharp from the normal viewing distance of several feet. Just
like 35 is large enough for 5 X 7 then MF is large enough for 11 X 14.
Only when examining large prints closely does the difference in format of
MF vs LF show up. Otherwise a 11 X 14 or even a 20 X 24 from MF is going
to plenty sharp enough to the casual viewer who is viewing the print from
several feet away.
Hope this can be used as food for thought on
the matter.
BobE
Newsgroups:
rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Whats the big deal with
medium format anyway
Date: Sat, 13 Jun 1998
From: David Payne
[email protected]
I just wanted to add one more thing to the
previous posts. Right up there with all the advantages one can list, I
find being able to view the scene full size (in my case 2-1/4" X 2-1/4")
on the ground glass screen, with both eyes open gives me a perspective not
available in 35mm or rangefinders. The image on the glass of a MF waist
level finder almost appears 3 dimensional and is the closet thing to an
on-the-fly proof of how the composition would look on a transparency. This
advantage allows for much better composition and to me is almost as
important as the image size.
I even use my medium format camera to preview scenes I am about to set up
with my large format. Even though I am quite used to composing
up-side-down, the medium format is very helpful in fine tuning a
composition (especially since it is right-side-up). There is something
about viewfinders in 35mm and rangefinders that just seems to prevent me
from really "seeing" the scene.....maybe it is
just a matter of stereo vision versus monocular vision.
Regards,
Dave
From: "Michael K. Davis" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Image Circles/Different Formats ?
Date: 19 Jun 1998
Hi!
Jon Wells [email protected] wrote:
[snip]
: 3. I have a 4x5 press camera and a separate 6x7 back for it. Assuming : no change in lens, when the 6x7 back is used, the image size on the : negative is the same, but the field of view is cropped. To obtain the : same field of view, I need to step back twice as far, which results in : an image size that is one-half. I could then enlarge negative 200% and : thus have an image size and field of view that is the same as the 4x5. : If I did this, however, wouldn't the photo taken with the 6x7 : necessarily be less detailed because, among other reasons, the : object-to-lens distance was greater so less detail made it to the : negative? : : I appreciate your comments very much. Jon
Others have done a fine job answering your question, but I wanted to add
something relevant. When you double the distance between the camera and
the object on which you are focusing, you will quadruple the depth of
field. Backing up to increase depth of field is a great trade off. When
you crop the negative to achieve the perspective had before increasing the
object distance, the loss in sharpness due to cropping will be linear,
not exponential like the gain in depth of field. Of course, you may not
have needed that extra gain in depth of field and would have preferred to
avoid increased magnification of the grain structure.
Mike Davis
--
/---------------------\
Michael K. Davis
[email protected]
MIME Attachments OK
\---------------------/
rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
[1] Re: Macro and Medium format.
From: [email protected] (Joseph Albert)
Date: Tue Jul 14 1998
On Thu, 9 Jul 1998 15:59:25, Doug Stemke [email protected]
>wrote: > > I'm still a firm 35mm user, but can see the day when I move up to >medium format. I really enjoy nature macro photography now and when I do >ultimately move up to medium format I'd like to continue working in macro. >I currently use all Pentax 35 mm equipment, but other than a couple of >nice flashes (280T and 200T) I imagine I'd be starting from scratch. >Therefore some questions come to mind. > > What medium format systems best supports macro work? I'm willing >at this point to investigate most brands as I would be doing this slowly >as I can afford different lenses, options, etc.
I have two medium format systems and 2 non-interchangeable lens medium format
cameras, and use medium format hte most, but keep a small 35mm outfit for
doing macro work. in medium format, filling the frame with some object
means working at higher magnification, and hence more bellows factor
applied to the exposure. this coupled with the slower max. aperture of
medium format lenses, and you often get a really dark viewfinder image
to try to focus on.
As a result, medium format has a place in macro photography, but I don't
think it can ever completely replace 35mm for macro work. That is, you'll
want to keep some of your Pentax 35mm stuff too.
one feature that is really useful to have for macro work is rear tilt.
front tilt is potentially useful as well, but with the lens so close
to the subject in a macro situation, rear tilt is easier to use. this
will give you better control of the DOF of many macro shots, and given
that DOF can be in really short supply, this lets you shoot at wider
(and hence less diffraction-limited) apertures.
If you want a medium format camera with tilt-- the Rollei SL66 has
limited front tilt, and early Mamiya Press cameras have rear tilt.
6x9 field and view cameras from Linhof, Horseman, or Arca Swiss would
also be a possibility, and I think Calumet offers an inexpensive 6x9
view camera. A big disadvantage of these cameras for macro work is that
you will have to determine the bellows factor for exposure, as they
don't support TTL metering, (maybe the SL66 does?).
the cheapest macro outfits in a current model medium format SLR, are the
Pentax and Mamiya offerings, especially Pentax 645. There are new macro
lenses for Pentax 67 and Mamiya 645 but they are about $1200. For Bronica,
Hasselblad, and probably Rollei, but I haven't priced it, just a single
extension tube can be pricey. Opinions vary on the omission of mirror
lockup on Pentax 645 cameras. The Pentax 645N and 645 have the best
damped mirror of any medium format camera (645N is advertised as better
than 645, an improvement), but they lack MLU. Whether there are enough
vibrations to be noticeable in a macro image is debatable, although it is
interesting that Pentax felt compelled to improve the dampening when
designing the Pentax 645N.
j. albert
rec.photo.equipment.large-format
From: "Chris Newman" [email protected]
[1] 120 vs 4 x 5 sheet film
Date: Tue Jul 14 1998
I've been spending 3 to 4 weeks in India these last couple of years, working
mainly with 4 x 5 but with a Hasselblad and 80 mm lens for use when 4 x 5
was not convenient. The 4 x 5 was always loaded with 400 ASA TMax and the
Hasselblad with 100 ASA TMax. I make 16 x 20 prints and have to say there
is little to choose between them. If anything the 4 x 5 prints just have
the edge. I prefer the 4 x 5 for other reason but don't hesitate to use the
Hass where speed of shooting decides if an image will be made.
Chris Newman
rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
From: [email protected] (LDaneman)
[1] Re: square composition
Date: Thu Sep 03 1998
Gee, 6x6 an unueable format? I guess I'll just throw away all those great
album and CD covers!
Seriously, the 6x6 advantage is at waist level or the tripod. You can
instantly compose for portrait/landscape without turning the camera. Then,
if you use the camera enough, you will find yourself composing for the
square! Some beautiful photos are the result, especially in portrait and
wedding work.
One other unique composition I have found with 6x6 is the 'diamond' shape.
I turn the camera 45 degrees and you get the most beautiful photo
emphasizing the foreground and the med-horizontal.
6x6 is a state of mind. I have just bought a GS-1 and am getting used to
switching the camera for composition. I do print rectangular often, and
appreciate the extra 52 percent of neg.
LAD
rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
From: Bruce William Johnson [email protected]
[1] Re: Medium vs. 35 mm SLR
Date: Mon Feb 08 1999
The difference between 35mm and medium format is the film size.
Medium Form at refers to cameras that use a specific size of film. The
film sizes are 120, 220 and 70mm long rolls. The 120 and 220 films are
the same width but the 220 is twice as long. To give you some comparisons
in the different formats compared to 35mm take a look at the following.
Film Format Actual Image Size On The Negative 35mm 24 x 36 mm Medium Format 645 41.5 x 56 mm 6x6 56 x 56 mm 6x7 56 x 69.8 mm 6x8 56 x 75 mm
Note: There are other medium format sizes such as 6x9 and 6x12 that I did
not list above but also use the same size film.
I hope this will help.
Bruce William Johnson
rec.photo.equipment.35mm
From: [email protected] (CDA411)
[2] Re: Intro to medium format
Date: Sat May 08 1999
Here are some introductory thoughts on beginning in medium format: Many
photographers start out with Twinlens cameras like the Yashicamat 124G,
Mamiya C220 or Rolleicord. These have simple light meters, but are better
when used with a handheld meter, and the bonus is you better learn to see
light and light levels in your image. Carefully used, all can produce a
spectacular tranparency or negative that is hard to tell from one from a
fancier Medium Format camera. For rangefinder cameras, the Fuji 6x4.5mm
cameras are a great value, the old Koni-Omega is very basic, while the
Mamiya 6 & 7 systems are superb but very pricey. I recently rented a Fuji
GA645i autofocus, autoexposure medium format camera for a week when my
equipment was being repaired, and the photos were fantastically good.
(slides not prints) No one has ever gone wrong by starting with a very
simple, durable, top quality used Hasselblad 500 series, a finder, film
back and one lens. You can find used Hasselblad "kits" in pro stores
where they have been traded in for newer gear, and at camera fairs, for
around a grand. You would be surprised at what has been done with one
lens, a handheld meter, tripod, and some imagination. You could spend
years with just a simple setup like this, and do anything from scenic,
portraits or fine art shots all the way up to weddings, product shots,
nature and stock work. Consider starting with a close focusing Macro lens
around 120mm, that doubles as a portrait length. You can use it for
almost anything at almost any distance or size. Then add a moderate wide
angle if you like scenic or architectural shots.
Overall I think the cost difference between medium format and 35mm
camer as is overrated. Only at the cheap consumer end are 35 mm cameras a
lot cheaper. One reason is that 35mm is so versatile that most people
rapidly acquire a huge collection of prime and zoom lenses and accessories
for various types of situations, while the Medium Format approach is more
measured, and many pros can use only 2 or 3 prime lenses for all their
Medium format work. At the same time it is harder to get really excellent
photos from 35mm, and the top pro bodies and lenses are not much cheaper
than the medium format equipment. In Single lens reflex cameras using
larger film size, a decent starter system can be had for around
$1500-2000. At the bottom is the Kowa 6, which has a mixed reputation but
reputedly good lenses. Bronica is excellent, and many of the older S, EC,
SQ or ETRS cameras have a lot of life for a low price. The smaller
6x4.5mm slrs, made by Pentax, Mamiya, Contax, and Bronica, range from very
simple boxes with a shutter to modern autofocus auto-exposure bodies with
TTl flash. You get more shots on a roll of 120/220 film in 6x4.5mm size,
and the negative is only slightly smaller. The fancier ones are very
expensive.
No one has ever gone wrong by starting with a very simple,
durable, top quality used Hasselblad 500 series, a finder, film back and
one lens. You can find used Hasselblad "kits" in pro stores where they
have been traded in for newer gear, and at camera fairs, for around a
grand. You would be surprised at what has been done with one lens, a
handheld meter, tripod, and some imagination. You could spend years with
just a simple setup like this, and do anything from scenic, portraits or
fine art shots all the way up to weddings, product shots, nature and stock
work. Consider starting with a close focusing Macro lens around 120mm,
that doubles as a portrait length. You can use it for almost anything at
almost any distance or size. Then add a moderate wide angle if you like
scenic or architectural shots.
If a thousand bucks seems like alot, think about the price of film
and l ab work. I've shot $3000 worth of film this year and I'm just a
part-time semi-pro. And a Canon EOS or Nikon F4/5 will set you back over
a thousand bucks before you start to even look at good lenses. I have a
very modest 35mm setup that I've spent almost $4000 on-used. My
Yashicamat 124g (no interchangeable lenses) blows the 35mm out of the
water for only $200. Good luck-Chris
From: [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: A small comparison between 35mm and 6x6
Date: Wed, 28 Apr 1999
This subject has been done to death, but the following link has some sample
pictures that may help beginners see what the difference between 35mm and
medium format image quality looks like.
http://www.geocities.com/~ianporteous
Follow the link to "Photo Tests and Technical Articles" and then to "A small
comparison between 35mm and 6x6"
Ian
From: "Dirk J. Bakker" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: which medium format ?
Date: Sat, 29 May 1999
Frank Bridges wrote:
> i always wondered why 35 mm is in the 1 x 1 1/2 fformat
The 2:3 ratio (used as 24x36mm in 35mm, 6x9cm in medium-format) is more
pleasing and closer to the natural wide-field of human vision. In
composition, mathematics and aesthetics this ratio is closer to what is
referred to as "The Golden Mean" (An irrational number similar to Pi).
> - almost nobody wants to frame a 8 X 12 enlargement.
Huh??? You mean you have feet grown to the shoes you buy? I think you mean
where you shop you only can get...
> also, wasnt there a trend years ago to offer the 35mm camera in something > called a "half frame" format ?
Yes, exactly in the same orientation as in movie cameras, yielding about
twice the frame capacity. Olympus Pen F, etc. comes to mind. But what
exactly is the point?
> could it be that the early ones were using movie film and movies had a > certain aspect ratio that just got adopted without thinking it through ?.
Oh, boy. And then (we came along?) If you're seriously interested in learning
about the Golden Mean, aspect ratios and the evolution of different film
formats, for starters, please read:
The Golden Mean:
http://www.mathsoft.com/asolve/constant/gold/gold.html
Mathematical Proof of the Golden Mean:
http://www.netreach.net/people/waterboy/phiratio/
Aspect Ratios:
http://www.jps.net/sanctuary/theater/aspect/
, and
One hundred Years of Film Sizes:
http://www.xs4all.nl/~wichm/filmsize.html
Dirk Bakker
Dirk Bakker
[Ed.note: key point here is need to price out the entire system
first!]
From: Oleg March [email protected]
Date: 29 Jan 2000
Newsgroups: rec.photo.marketplace.medium-format
Subject: Re: Which medium-format SLR?
There are few major differenses between MF cameras. 1) Price 2)
interchangeble backs vs. film inserts. Backs allow you to shoot different
films slide, ngs and BW and you can use polarod backs. Since most MF
cameras don't meter polaroid is essential if you shoot slide film. 3) 6x6
vs 6x4.5 I'd say 6x4.5 is better, but your options are limited by Mamya
645 PRO or Pentax. I had a Mamya - v. good camera.
Hasselblad is the best. Compare prices. You can get a 6x4.5 back for a
Hassy but it's a bitch to frame vertical shots. Shop Ebay for both. See
how much the whole system will run. Hassy isn't bigger than Mamya. 500
models use shutter in the lens so you can synch flash at any shutter
speed. 1000 and 2000 use rear curtain. Flash synch @ 1/30, but lenses are
cheper and lighter. Pros use 500 series. 500C base model($300-$400). 500CM
allows you to use brighter screens. 503 ($1000- $1500) can do TTL flash
and will take a winder ($700) Prices are approx and for used models.
40 mm $900-$1800 50 mm $750- $1800 80 mm $300- $1200 150 mm $750- $1800 Prisms $100- $1500 there are some cheap Russian prism that do the job. Backs $200-$700 Polaroid back $100-$150
Good luck.
Oleg March
Date: 28 Jan 2000
From: [email protected] (Dan Moore)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: More on 35mm vs MF (Final word?) Uh-huh
First off, my 35mm equipment is newer and better than my MF. I use a
contax body and (obviously) carl Zeiss lenses. My MF is a 20 year old
Mamiya RB67, with the old (non C) 90mm.
I can tell at a glance which shot is MF and which is 35mm. I have worked
in pro-labs and for other photogs, and even at the Image Bank.........I've
seen a lot of images, and I have never ever mistaken an image shot on 35mm
for one shot on MF. Frankly, anyone who believes the quality is
comparable is deluding themselves (like all those studios that tell their
clients they shoot on 35mm - there's no difference anyway). A 2x3 inch
print is about where the quality difference becomes academic IMHO,
anything larger and MF wins.
That being said, you can still get a perfectly acceptable - and saleable -
image on 35mm. I am not a format snob. I shoot the format that fits the
situation. I even (gasp) use 35 for the majority of wedding shots I do.
I think those who argue over this issue should give more thought to why
they don't like, or don't see the need for, another format. In most
cases, I think it boils down to either envy, or snobbishness.
Date: Wed, 25 Aug 1999
From: [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: why aren't leaf-shutter lenses obsolete yet?
[email protected] (David Dyer-Bennet) wrote:
> "Terry" [email protected] writes: > > >With the advent of electronic flash that can fire many bursts of flashes in > >a split second, some new 35mm cameras can flash sync at any speed w/o leaf > >shutter lens (e.g. canon EOS 3, and I believe some minolta SLRs as well).
As someone else alluded to, FP shutters are noisier. FP shutters make
more vibration because the major parts don't move in opposition like the
leaves in a leaf shutter. The noise and vibration problems get worse
with bigger film formats. The higher effective shutter speeds in FP
shutter come with another caveat: if I set my Canon T-90 shutter to
1/4000 even though each bit of film gets (hopefully) 1/4000 sec. of
exposure the entire exposure still takes 1/250 sec. and a subject like a
car moving fast across the frame will look distorted. The fastest leaf
shutters reach 1/1000 sec. with electronic precision, plenty fast for
general purpose photography. In what way is that obsolete??
TB
Date: Thu, 26 Aug 1999
From: Curtis Leeds [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: why aren't leaf-shutter lenses obsolete yet?
> As someone else alluded to, FP shutters are noisier. FP shutters make > more vibration because the major parts don't move in opposition like the > leaves in a leaf shutter....
This is mistaken; focal plane shutters are not inherently
noisier than leaf shutters. It's the mirrors in SLRs( which
commonly use FP shutters) that are responsible for the
noise.
Try using an M series Leica, and you'll know how quiet a
good FP shutter is.
--
Date: Mon, 25 Oct 1999
From: John S. Douglas [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Medium Format
[email protected] (Nxtthime) wrote:
>What are the advantages to shooting medim format?
Boy ! Where do you start with this one !
Well image quality in that tonality is _dramatically_improved
with the larger negative.
BTW, don't be fooled by the terms such as sharpness. Actually
MF optics are hardly on par with some of the top optics available to
35mm and actually film flatness is an issue that has hardly been
addressed and only aggravates the problem.
But as far as in-print sharpness, it's an optical illusion as
the images are simply magnified less (in general) in the final print.
What most are really seeing is the films ability to define an edge
better with more silver grains per millimeter of image than the
smaller formats can record. Of course this is still quite effective
nonetheless and images made from MF negatives are apparently much
sharper in prints as small as 5X7.
Also with the larger negative retouching is much faster,
easier and less costly than digital imaging from a 35mm. An average
retouch for MF is around $4-$8 where as digital is substantially more.
Running up to $50 per image by the time an output to film is done.
Higher speed flash syncs to 1/500th on most any camera and to
1/1000th on a few specially shuttered Rollei cameras.
Total system support. Interchangeable viewfinders, format
backs (my RB 67 has 6X8, 6X7, 6X6, 6X4.5, 70mm, and a rather unique
sheet film format of 72X72 mm called Quadra.) and , Polaroid backs for
previewing your lighting and composition before committing your image
to film as well as checking systems function, power drives, manual
winders, macro systems. In short the works.
This really pays dividends when you have a special assignment
which has very special needs. Hasselblad and Mamiya both have
remarkably capable systems with some very unique solutions to unique
photographic situations. In fact they have both produced unique
solutions for image shifting such as what you would normally expect on
a view camera. Hasselblad developed the X-Body and Mamiya a shiftable
front standard that mounts to the body like a macro bellows.
BTW, almost all MF cameras have interchangeable backs so you
can switch from chrome to B&W negative to sheet films to polaroids
without missing a beat and all in mid-roll. This also helps as you can
keep loaded backs available and simply snap one on, pull the darkslide
and you're ready to get back to work.
AFAIK the only 35 to offer such system integrated support is
the F5 and it's missing a couple of capabilities as well. Ever shoot a
'roid on a 35mm ? What would be the point ? ! And midroll film
changing in a 35 is just begging for trouble, IMO.
And one of my most favorite features of many MF cameras is the
ability to shoot without batteries and under most any adverse
condition. Leaf shutters work. Unfortunately these features aren't
desired by the average consumer so 35mm camera shed them for the most
part in the late 80's. I think the F3 was the last pro 35 to have a
default synced shutter capability. But Hasselblad, Bronica, Mamiya and
Contax still have manual shutter capabilities on many of their cameras
as a pro might not be able to stop and change batteries during a shoot
such as a wedding or covering runway models.
> Is 120 and 220 film more or less expensive to >purchase/develop?
Generally more expensive but then most people using MF
equipment also use pro labs and not Wal Mart type labs. We pay around
$0.60 per proof and $2.00/120 roll for development.
> Any help will be rewarded in the afterlife, where your karma >will no doubt get you to the next level.
According to some I can use all the help I can get ! Thanks !
Regards,
John S. Douglas
http://www.spectrumphoto.com
Date: Tue, 15 Jun 1999
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
From: [email protected] (Mark Erickson)
Subject: MF vs 35mm quality--it's obvious!
So I was in Calypso Imaging last week and again today picking
up some chromes. They have an exhibit demonstrating the quality
of their LightJet printing. The exhibit shows photographs by
Galen Rowell, Bill Atkinson, and a couple of other excellent
photographers whose names I can't remember.
At least one of the Rowell photos is reproduced in the June
issue of Outdoor Photographer, specifically in an article where
Rowell talks about his "conversion" to digital printing. The
article is worth reading, since he describes how the digitization,
color balance, etc., process works at a high quality level.
I'm pretty sure that all of the Rowell pics were 35mm, while many (all?)
of the other exhibited works were medium or large format. I believe that
the photographers used the best available scanning devices and carefully
Photoshopped the images to bring out their best qualities (color
balancing, unsharp masking, etc., but not a lot of "manipulation"). To me,
this is probably the best way to bring out the qualities (or shortcomings)
of the original film format.
Rowell's LightJet prints (something like 11x17 in size) are beautiful, but
when you get up close, you can really see where the resolution limits
are. When compared to works by the other photographers that was done
with medium or large format, the result is rather striking. The
medium/large format work just glows at any distance, while Rowell's
work looks great until you get close (actually, it still looks great,
but not as great as it would be if it were sharper). Some of the
other works are razor sharp very close up even though they are
printed in substantially larger sizes.
If you are in the San Jose area it is worth stopping in at Calypso
to check out the difference. I can see why Art Wolfe carries a
Mamiya 645 for landscapes.
--Mark
Date: Thu, 17 Jun 1999
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
From: [email protected] (Paul Rubin)
Subject: Re: Medium-Format: Experiences of those who have moved from
35mm
[email protected] wrote:
>Can anyone relate experiences/surprises among those who have had a few >years of experience with 35mm SLR's and have moved into medium format? > >Both those who have moved into 35mm-like cameras, as well as the more >traditional medium format cameras.
I have shot with 35mm for ages and a while back got a Yashicamat 124G.
The 124G is a basic cheap TLR. The optics are fairly good when
stopped down. It has a light meter, but the one on mine (like most of
them) is way out of adjustment, so I meter with a 35mm SLR or just
guess exposure. Unfortunately my 124G broke before I could shoot much
with it. I'll get around to getting it fixed one of these years.
The TLR takes some getting used to, because of the reversed viewing,
the dark waist-level finder, etc.; plus, it's bulkier than a 35mm
(though not that much heavier--it's mostly air inside). Bring the
film to a typical minilab and they'll look at you like you're crazy.
One surprise is the picture quality is obviously better even on small
prints, like 3.5x3.5", not just enlargements. I've noticed this with
large format pictures too. I'm not sure why it is. It's not
sharpness or detail-- 35mm is just as good for that. I think it has
more to do with how large areas with subtle tonal variation get
rendered. You can see more distinct shades and colors in a low
contrast subject. Enlargements look a lot better too, of course.
Projecting 6x6 cm slides with a Hasselblad slide projector ($3K or so)
is supposed to be stunning. I haven't ever gotten to try that.
Adolph Gasser's (SF pro shop) used to rent the projectors for $50 a
day and I thought of renting one for a slide show some evening, but
they don't offer them any more.
Date: Thu, 17 Jun 1999
From: [email protected] (Joseph Albert)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: MF vs 35mm quality--it's obvious!
NYCFoto [email protected] wrote:
>Here's my 2 cents worth, and this comes from a photographer who makes his >living with LF. To me photojournalism is about the moment, and how to best >capture that moment. While I prefer the higher quality negatives that can be >acheived with MF and LF, I also understand that those formats are slower >working and more cumbersome than 35mm. I feel that 35mm is a better choice for >photojournalism than MF due to it's portability and speed.
Different cameras have different strengths when it comes to capturing the
moment. 35mm might be faster to focus, might have all sorts of automation
to free you to think about the image, but 6x6 offers the freedom to crop
heavily after the fact. You don't have to think too much about
composition. with 35mm, you will have to compose well because the postage
stamp of a negative doesn't allow too much cropping without significant
loss in quality.
I've done some amazing candids with TLRs, mostly Rollei's. They have a
virtually silent shutter, with a waist-level finder, the people in the
composition usually won't know you are taking a picture, and the
composition doesn't have to be precise, so you can just glance down at the
ground glass from time to time. My technique here is to shoot in natural
light that I've measured in advance so the exposure settings are done in
advance. I then set the focus to a distance that will capture the desired
magnification of the subject on film, and I mill around at that distance,
glancing down at the ground glass and back up at the subject, with my
finger on the shutter release. I'll use an f-stop with adequate depth of
field that camera position isn't critical for acceptable focus, but will
keep the focus adjusted for my distance so it will generally be fairly
close. When I see an image in the ground glass that I want, I click the
shutter. I don't still do this type of work, and don't even own any
Rollei TLRs any more, but I got better results like this than I ever did
with 35mm. Just holding a camera up to your eye makes everyone squirm and
get fidgetty, worried about their photos being taken.
Another great tool for the photojournalist is a Leica rangefinder. Being
able to see what is about to enter the frame while looking through the
viewfinder is a big advantage vs. SLRs. It is no accident that the great
photojournalistic work done for national geographic was often done with
these cameras.
the wizzy, autofocus SLR (whether 35mm or 645 now) seems to be good for
taking pics of models where the subject knows their pic is being taken.
with a Pentax 645N or Contax 645 you can burn off film at a rapid pace and
have lots of proofs to look at and pick out the best from. But give me a
rangefinder or TLR for photojournalistic work any day.
J. Albert
Date: Wed, 16 Jun 1999
From: "Michael Liczbanski" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: the future of medium format
Why would you like to "move" from one format to another? Cameras are
tools (unless you are a worshiper type...) and as such should be selected
with a task in mind.
Which format is better? Wrong question! The correct one is "which
format/camera/system will do the job in the most optimal way?" Unless you
are a narrow specialist (say, wildlife photos, which require a 35 mm with
humongo long and bright tele) you'll probably use many formats and systems
in your work or hobby.
Your mileage may vary.
Michael
greg kerr wrote
>To my mind the perfect fantasy camera would shoot 6x7 but be the same >size and have all the gollygeewhiz features as my Nikon F90x. In reality >most 6x7 medium format cameras are absolute pigs to lug around. 6x6 does >take some getting used to and the cameras are still larger and >definately lack the high tech features of 35mm. The most promising seems >to be 6x4.5 as much as some of the cameras now have autofocus, etc. but >they are still less practical than the modern 35mm cameras for certain >types of action photography. > >It seems that there are a number of serious amateur photographers such >as myself who would like to make a serious move to medium format but >don't feel that giving up our 35mm units would be a wise move at this >time. I am wondering if the 6x4.5 cameras will eventually offer more >35mm style features in order to capture the high end 35mm market. Any >thoughts on this.
Date: Sun, 12 Sep 1999
From: "Bob Salomon" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Why doesn't Nikon make any Medium format gear?
Opinion is fine but:
Manny Millon from Sports Illustrated has been using 6008 Rolleis for
several years for major indoor arena events for SI. Major like the NBA
finals.
Indianapolis Speedway has been photographing the 500 since 1986 with
medium format 6x6.
Tony Leonard, the Triple Crown race photographer has been shooting 6x6 for
a while. I have a copy of his shot of Secretariat crossing the finish line
at the Kentucky Derby that he shot with the SL66.
Medium format is a viable way to shoot sports or action just as much as
anything else is. Especially if you know the sport, know how to anticipate
peak action and shoot at the decisive moment. Shooting sports has not
always been hold the shutter release down and fire a roll in 3 seconds and
pick the best frame.
Just look at some of the sports shots from the 20s to the 60s that were
done with large format or medium format.
--
HP Marketing Corp. U.S. distributor for Amazon, Braun, Gepe, Giottos,
Heliopan, HP Combi Plan T, Kaiser fototechnik, KoPho cases, Linhof, Pro
Release, Rimowa, Rodenstock, Sirostar 2000
----------
[email protected] wrote:
> RE: MF for sports, etc., speed. Has been some movement, expecially in > 645 realm. Pentax, Hassy, and Rollei all getting auto-wind speeds up, > auto-focus beginning in earnest, etc. > The physical barriers to be overcome given the size of the frame are > daunting. Current efforts made toward automation a-la Nikon/Canon to > date are very expensive (look at Hassy's top of the line in automation) > and still don't compare in features, speed, or convenience. > > Of course for sports there's always the focal length problem also. All > the long lenses are really only 1/2 as long as equiv. FL in 35mm. And > they're slower. > > My opinion: Action/sports photography will remain dominion of 35mm for > the indefinite future. MF pros will always appear here and there with > astonishing special set-up shots -- especially the wide-field shooters > -- but the lack of versatility of MF will keep them in the minority. > > "Dolph" [email protected] wrote: >> I have thought about this for a while and was wondering if any of you > here >> could enlighten me. Also, on that thought, I have another question. > Are >> medium format cameras used for sports photography? I have personally > never >> seen one that would be fast enough to use. Are there any medium > format >> cameras that have features comperable to, lets say a Nikon N90s or > Canon >> A2/A2e; autofocus, motor wind, matrix-metering, etc, etc, etc. >>
From: "TED SMITH" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Mamiya for beginner?
Date: Sun, 28 May 2000
Steve Lefevre [email protected] wrote
> A trusted friend of mine who's done photographs for many years told me to > buy a used Mamiya 645. He basically said forget 35 mm, he's taken his > beloved camera all around the world for some 20 years without a hitch, and > most importantly, **they take awesome pictures** (his words).
Steve,
Let me add my two bits to the good advice offered by others.
In 1973 my friend and I both purchased brand new "used" Hassies from the
same store for a significant saving. The reason? The store had sold the
cameras to first-time purchasers who had been convinced that they needed
"the best" camera made. Within a month, both cameras were traded back to
the store for 35mm SLRs.
I have owned about 90 % of medium format brands and used the rest.
Medium format is great where extreme detail is required (or to impress the
hell out of the client) and while some 645s handle more like a 35mm, they
have some limitations.
To me, #1 limitation is film size. I'm sure that in New York on a Sunday
afternoon buying a roll of 120 isn't too dificult, but how about buying a
roll of 120 in a small town on a Sunday? Then put that town into a third
world country. I'm pretty sure that a roll of Kodak 135-24 would be a lot
easier to find.
Limitation #2 is lens size versus magnification. A 200mm lens on a 35mm
camera brings you in roughly 4 times closer to your subject. A 200mm on a
120 camera will bring you in 2 times to 3 times closer.
Limitation #3 is availability and price of accessories. Expect to have
fewer lens choices and expect to pay much more for what is available.
Limitation #4 is size and weight. Although the new crop of 35mm AF SLRs
are larger than older models, they often don't add a lot more weight
because of the use of plastics. Likewise for lens. Medium format cameras
tend to be built like tanks.
Limitation #5 takes me back to my Hassie deal. There's a learning process
involved in photography and while the principals of photography don't
change from format to format, it may be easier to learn photography on a
smaller, easier to handle camera.
Everyone learns and works their own way, so what works for one photog may
not work for the other. Years ago I knew a pro who often took an RB67
whitewater rafting. I tend to use my RB67 as a paperweight until a job
requires me to carry it around. I have almost 30 years experience as a
news and commercial photographer, teacher, and camera store owner. My
feeling is you'll do better if you apply your $$$ to some good 35mm
equipment. Like everyone else in this group, I have my own dogmatic
feelings about brand name ... ONLY buy new 35mm gear made my
Contax/Yashica, Leica, Nikon, Canon, Pentax or Minolta ... all those other
SLR brands are just junk. (unless you can find a used Olympus, Mamiya 35,
Ricoh, Chinon, Rollie 35, Alpa, Edixa, Fuji, Exata, Topcon or Practica...
in which case, they're OK too.)
Enjoy your trip.
Ted
From: zeitgeist [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Date: Thu, 01 Jun 2000
Subject: Re: C330 and flash
Nick wrote:
> I'm using a C330, a > stroboframe and a vivitar 285. I understand that the camera syncs at any > shutter speed, but can you explain how to choose one, the flash tells me > what f stop to use but the flash manual says to use the camera's > recommendation for a shutter speed. Do I need to use a light meter? > > Anyway any advice you can offer would be greatly appreciated.
co-ordinating flash and ambient light is one of the cooler
things you can do, and since you have a leaf shutter camera,
there are fewer limits and more opportunities than with
focal plane shutters as others have explained.
the guiding principle is:
flash exposure is controlled by the output and the f/stop.
ambient exposure is controlled by shutter speed and f/stop.
So you can find an f/stop that will allow you to balance the
two to your needs.
As a wedding photographer in a church or reception hall, the
typical images will show a well exposed couple, a washed out
dress with no detail, and a very dark to black background.
I take a meter reading and find out that the light in the
church is average dark, f/4 at 1/4th of a second. good
thing I use a tripod. I set my flash for f/5.6 (actually I
set my key flash for f/5.6 but thats another story) and my
lens for f/5.6. This will let my subjects receive a full
measure of light, but the background will fill up to within
one stop and give me full detail.
with a fast 1/500th flash sync you can do some syncro sun,
same principle, set your flash for one stop under the sun's
f/16 for fill, or run the shutter speed up to 1/500th and
blast your flash one stop over and the sky becomes a deep
saturated blue, not that pale vaporous color.
z-ProPhoto [email protected]
Date: 5 Jul 2000
From: [email protected] (Robert Monaghan)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: LF real benefits (not resolution, shifts) was Re: 6x6
virtues
The real benefits of large format are the greater accutance and shadow
gradation rather than higher resolution on the larger film area. This is
why older lenses, some with rather modest resolution figures, still work
well in large format when compared to medium format lenses that provide
higher onfilm lpmm resolutions. The other major benefit comes from image
controls such as shifts/tilts of both lens/body, as well as strengths in
closeup work and so on.
In other words, medium format isn't really limited by lens resolution
versus large format (unlike case in 35mm) even for making billboard sized
prints - it is other factors IMHO that push you into going LF ;-)
grins
bobm
From: [email protected] (Joe B.)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2000
Subject: Re: 35mm or medium format -- PLZ DON'T FIGHT!
My suggestion is that if you are interested in using medium format and
tempted to sell a whole 35mm system to get it, you experiment with
medium format first rather than selling a 35mm system which you may
later decide you needed after all. A good way to experiment is to get
a Rolleicord (not the ones with a Triotar though) in decent condition
and see how you get one with medium format using that. Obviously you
wouldn't have the multiple lens options but you can still get a very
good sense of the differing formats doing this. FWIW I find I use the
fixed-standard-lens medium format cameras much more often than a MF
slr myself and I find those fixed standard lenses strangely
versatile...
Joe B.
From Rollei Mailing List:
Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2000
From: Matthew Phillips [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Ikoflex demise: chicken or egg?
>...Small format "rules" in size and weight, an important >consideration for many photographers who must carry their hardware around >on their shoulder. In prints, a good 35mm body with superb lens can run >head-to-head with MF up to 8x10's. In larger (11x14 or 16x20) MF usually >overruns 35mm... >-- John
Detecting the differences in color prints may be difficult up to 8x10
size, but the larger negative produces clearly superior black and white
enlargements of any size. Not just in terms of sharpness or grain but also
in terms of tonality. Since black and white is what I print and exhibit, I
have to factor in the convenience of my darkroom time as well. I can make
a fine print from 35mm, but I find printing from the larger negative is
always faster, easier and yields more satisfying results.
While it'd be an unfair comparison to put a Rollei 35 against a 6008, with
more similarly capable equipment, the differences in size diminish. When I
compare the size and weight of, say, my Canon F-1 w/35mm or 50mm lens to
that of my Rolleiflex T, the practical differences are so small I can't
justify trading off 72% of the negative size to shave a couple ounces. (If
size and weight becomes that critical, then I'll switch to my wallet-sized
Voigtlander Bessa 66.) Reloading a Rolleiflex after 12 frames can be a
drag when you're out in the field. Aside from that single point, in my
experience, the convenience factor is roughly the same.
I still shoot color in 35, but for black and white, 120 is my hand-held
camera of choice.
From Rollei Mailing List:
Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2000
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] 35vsMF--was Ikoflex demise: chicken or egg?
A brief observation in this endless debate--I've found that with
familiarity, even an intrinsically awkward camera (e.g., the Rolleiflex
TLR) can become almost as easy to use as the classic 35mm SLR allegedly
is. And when i recently did a vacation shoot with a 35mm SLR after a long
absence from that format, I was surprised how awkward it now seemed. So
the convenience argument is a relatively weak one, the human hand-brain
connection being as adaptable as it is.
From Nikon Mailing List:
Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000
From: Jonathan Castner [email protected]
Subject: [NIKON] Re: Why spend so much money on 35mm cameras?
Your question is really two parted.
Q 1) Why 35mm?
A 1) The main reason that your prints from your 6x6 camera look better
than the ones from your 35mm is simply a matter of negative size. Larger
negatives retain greater sharpness than a smaller negative for a given
print size because they are not enlarged as much. An 8x10 print from a
35mm neg is the same magnification as a 16x20 print from a 6x7 neg or a
30x40 from a 4x5 neg. It's not that the Kowa lens is sharper, it isn't,
it's just that you are comparing different magnification ratios. Using
the same magnification ratio in the printing, you will see that the 35mm
images are sharper and thus, smaller than your Kowa images. This is the
"different tools for different jobs" bit. For large print sizes, you want
a big negative if maximum quality is key. Large prints for 8x10, and
larger, cameras have a clarity that is magnificent. However, 8x10 is a
lousy format for sports or candids. Most portraits aren't enlarged much
beyond 11x14 so 6x6 or 6x7 cameras are a good compromise as their negative
size makes excellent enlargements at that size and yet they are smaller
and faster to work with than a 4x5 camera. However, they are awful for
sports and journalism where speed, bright/long lenses and mobility are
paramount. 35mm is small, light, fast and flexible. It is not maximum
quality but maximum image making ability. 5fps, 400mm f/2.8's and 28mm
f/1.4's alone explain the abilities of 35mm to capture moments in
situations that Medium Format and Large Format simply can't. The price we
pay for the flexibility and speed is a limit on our maximum print size
before quality obviously suffers. If big prints are important to you,
then you should be using bigger film than 35mm and find subjects that will
work with your chosen gear and format. If you use excellent lenses, fine
grained film and proper technique, 35mm can make large prints, over 11x14,
that look great on their own but not when compared to images made with a
larger format.
Q 2) why so much money?
A 2) To produce a normal professional photo kit,
Medium Format is much more expensive than 35mm and Large Format. Not
every pro shooter needs a $8,000 400mm f/2.8 for their Nikon but every pro
shooter needs at least a wide, normal and medium tele/portrait lens.
Both 35mm and MF shooters will have 2-3 bodies @ $2000 each. The 35mm wide
lens (28mm) will cost around $350 while the MF wide lens, (60mm) will cost
$2000. The 35mm normal lens will cost under $200 while the MF lens will
cost over $1000. The 35mm medium tele (85mm f/1.8) will cost $350 while
the MF (150mm) will cost $2000. Add to that the 3 film backs for the MF @
$600 each. Large format is different where they are usually happy with
one wide and one medium tele. A good studio 4x5 body runs about $1500 and
the wide lens (90mm) costs $1500. The tele lens (210mm) costs $1000.
Add in a dozen film holders, $250.
The totals are for normal pro gear and not the exotic stuff:
35mm : $4,900
Medium format: $10,800
4x5 : $4,250
Now many 35mm shooters will have more lenses than that, (I certainly do)
but many MF shooters will have more lenses too. Either way, you get the
point. Ya want a 180mm for your 35mm system? You can get one for $800.
The MF version, (350mm) will set you back $5,000. Granted, your mileage
and needs may vary but the numbers are consistent. 35mm is a bargain for
what you get, and 4x5 is still the king for enlargements.
Cheers!
Jonathan Castner -Photojournalist
Denver, Colorado
[Ed. note: the master reviewer of Leica optics on medium format available
light and street photography merits...]
From Leica Mailing List:
Date: Sun, 30 Jul 2000
From: "Erwin Puts" [email protected]
Subject: [Leica] Street photography
My state of mental health has been questioned when I cited that the
Rolleiflex and the Speed Graphlex were good instruments for outstanding
street and documentary photography. If photographic history is a guide, I
may mention Boubat, Doisneau, van der Elsken as exemplary street
photographers with Rolleicord and Rolleiflex, with a quality of dynamics
and available light scenes than many a contemporary Leica photographer
would have put to a challenge. For larger format photography the history
is even longer, spanning from Lewis Hine (Graphlex) to Walker Evans (4x5
inch) to Weegee (Graphlex), Berenice Abbott, August Sander, to the
Japanese Araki with a 6x7 camera. I do not deny the excellence of the 35mm
format for this type, but my reference was meant to broaden the
perspective.
Erwin
From Leica Mailing List:
Date: Sun, 30 Jul 2000
From: Mark Rabiner [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Leica] Street photography
Erwin Puts wrote:
> My state of mental health has been questioned when I cited that the > Rolleiflex and the Speed Graphlex were good instruments for outstanding > street and documentary photography. > If photographic history is a guide, I may mention Boubat, Doisneau, van der > Elsken as exemplary street photographers with Rolleicord and Rolleiflex, > with a quality of dynamics and available light scenes than many a > contemporary Leica photographer would have put to a challenge. > (Snip)
Rolleiflexes on the LUG!!!
Some people don't' know that about the only camera in the world quieter
than a Leica m is a Rolleiflex TLR!!!!! I've gone out Rolleiflexes
shooting with Lugger Byron Rakitzis and his Rolleiflexes and soon with
Pitak Chenkosol with his new 2.8 F!! An incredible instrument for street
OR shooting city or landscapes. If you have a medium format enlarger you
should DEFINITELY get yourself a Rolleiflex and find out what some even
occasional brownie film can do to your point of view. You may never come
back. Its not like trying to shoot light though a key hole. It's amazing
how that 80mm in my case Zeiss but also Schneider lens always seems to
have the right angle. You seldom long for a wider or more tele lens. And
people seldom run away from you or clobber you over the head!
My experience with my speed graphic is such that I can't speak for it as
much. It's lens has always had something a little wrong with it making it
soft. I'm going to have to get it going so I can do some hand held sheet
film!
Mark Rabiner
From: [email protected] (BHilton665)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Date: 17 Aug 2000
Subject: Re: Prints from 6x7 vs. 4x5
>From: Howard Lester [email protected] > >I am wondering how 16x20 color prints from 6x7 compare to those made >from 4x5.
Here's a table from a leading digital lab showing the crossover points for
print size vs neg size ...
http://www.westcoastimaging.com/wci/page/info/formatsize.html
According to the table it looks like the difference is negligible for 6x7
vs 4x5 for prints up to 20x24", at least from digital prints made from
their 5,000 dpi Tango drum scans. Your tastes may vary.
Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2000
From: [email protected] (Tom)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: medium format vs 35mm
Anders Svensson
[email protected] wrote:
>I suggest you think about how many grain clusters you are able to project on the >photographic paper (or the wall, if thinking slides). A 4.5 by 6 negative will >project roughly three times as many of these than a 24 by 36 mm negative. > >I believe information theory give a better foundation than linear mathematics for >this philosopractical discussion. If it is aimed at getting better images from 35 >mm film, it's useful, BTW - perhaps less so if aimed at proving that MF is >"better". . >Anders Svensson
You don't have to go to anything as esoteric as information theory to
understand why there will be better tonal separation if there are more
dye clusters available in a region.
For the sake of simplicity, lets assume the aspect ratio of the
formats under consideration are all the same (or very close) (ie, lets
say all are equivalent to 24x36 or 6x9, or whatever),
Lets assume that we are comparing two prints of the same size. One
made from format #1 (eg 35 mm) and one made from format #2 (eg, MF).
Lets say there is a relatively small feature in the picture that we
want to look nice (eg, the face of a spectator in the background of a
wedding shot). To even recognize the face, let alone to get it to
look nice, lets say we need 100 resolvable pixels to cover the face.
Thus, in 35 mm, each such pixel might turn out to be 25 microns on a
side, whereas in a larger format (eg, 6x9) each such pixel will be
proportionally larger (say, 60 microns on a side). If the film grain
/ dye cloud average size (assumed to be the same in both formats) is 3
microns, then there will be 70 (= 25x25 / 3x3) grains in this area in
the smaller format, and 5.75 times this number of grains in the
corresponding are of the MF shot. If we assume this is a B&W emulsion
and each grain corresponds to one color and can only be on or off,
this means that can be only 70 gray levels in the 35mm case, and
roughtly 400 grey levels in the MF case.
As I think everyone will agree, seventy distinct grey levels will make
for a noticably mottled appearance, with large fractional jumps in
tone, particularly at the ends of the curves (ie, where you might be
going from 1 grain "on" per pixel to 2 grains "on". Expressed
differently, this would correspond to an effective bit depth of only 6
bits!
On the other hand, the MF example could have of order 400 distinct
grey levels in this area (or a bit depth of almost 9 bits) -
distinctly better than 35 mm.
While I made many simplifying assumptions (both stated and unstated),
nevertheless, a very simple example illustrates why there is better
tonal separation with larger format (without needing to invoke more
technical arguments such as info theory and concepts such as
"information content", entropy, etc.).
Just my $0.02,
Tom
Washington, DC
Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2000
From: [email protected] (Gene Windell)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: medium format vs 35mm
"Q.G. de Bakker" [email protected] wrote:
>Indeed! >More defined tonal separtion because of larger spatial seperation is not >restricted to one or the other end of the curve. It occurs throughout the >entire range of densities.
Right. The improvement is all across the spectrum. But it just seems
more noticeable and obvious in the shadow detail, and this is
naturally what people most often comment on.
I've noticed that the range of color gradation in the subject matter
is not nearly so great in my studio work as it is outdoors. I see a
bigger difference in mid-tone color gradation, between MF and 35mm,
when shooting outdoor scenics. In studio work, a painted canvas or
muslin backdrop is used along with seamless paper rolls. Put a solid
colored object in front of this type of backdrop, and there isn't much
color tone gradation to begin with. But outdoors in bright sunlight,
the improvement in mid-tone color gradation becomes quite obvious.
I've found that 35mm can equal the results of medium format at the
8X10 enlargement size, but only under ideal conditions. First, the
exposure of the 35mm film must be precisely accurate. Second, the
lighting must be somewhat less than full high contrast. Third, bright
highlights and dense shadows must be absent from the scene. Forth,
the image must be precisely focused. And finally, the 35mm camera
must be mounted on a tripod or electronic flash used as the main light
source. Unfortunately, all of these factors are seldom combined under
the conditions where 35mm cameras are most often used.
When a negative is enlarged, it is not just the scene that is
increased in size. The photographer's mistakes such as focusing and
exposure errors are enlarged as well, and made more obvious.
Because it is magnified to a smaller degree than 35mm to achieve the
same sized print, medium format negatives are more forgiving of the
photographer's technical errors.
In the final analysis, I believe much less precision in technique is
required to produce technically excellent photos from MF than 35mm. I
believe the lazy and complacent photographer would get more impressive
results by investing his money in a medium format camera instead of a
computerized 35mm SLR. I've tried it both ways, and this has been my
experience.
Gene Windell
Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2000
From: [email protected] (Gene Windell)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Maybe moving to Medium Format, Opinions?
"Richard Knight"
[email protected] wrote:
> I have been told that after a particular >distance, it really doesn't come into play that much. I am guessing the >distance would be determined by the focal length of the lens used. Is this >correct?
Most TLRs don't focus close enough for parallax error to become a big
problem. Through experience, you learn how to compensate. Same with
using a waist-level finder on an SLR - it has some advantages that you
learn to appreciate, and some disadvantages that you learn to work
around or ignore.
The great appeal of a 35mm SLR is that it works well for any subject
matter or shooting conditions. Macro, astrophotography, action
sports, portraits, landscapes, wildlife, fashion, weddings - you name
it, and a 35mm SLR can do it all well. With medium format cameras,
this just isn't so. The various types of MF cameras seem to be
designed to suit a particular niche, specialty or style of shooting.
You really have to decide which "niche" you fall into before you can
know which type of MF camera is right for you.
TLR cameras are not good for eye-level shooting, and most (except the
Mamiyas) don't have interchangeable lenses. And there is no
close-focusing. But they are lighter, quiter, and more portable than
an SLR camera - and no removeable backs or dark slides to pack around
with you or lose.
Among MF cameras, the rangefinders handle more like a 35mm SLR than
anything else. The shape of the camera body, ergonomics, and
placement of the controls are very familiar. The rangefinder cameras
can be carried on a strap around your neck, and are optimized for
quick, eye-level shooting hand-held. These all have leaf shutter
lenses, but only a few types have interchangeable lenses.
Rangefinders are as quick and easy to focus, better in dim light, than
even a 35mm SLR. A rangefinder MF camera is the best known cure for
"Leica envy." But you sacrifice close focusing ability, there is no
TTL light metering, most have no multiple exposure capability, it is
difficult to use a matte box or even a polarizing filter, and usually
no Polaroid film backs available. So what you gain in convenience and
ease of use you give up in versatility.
The SLR cameras are most versatile, but are also the bulkiest,
heaviest, and noisiest. To get really sharp results, you have to
shoot with flash or mount the camera on a tripod due to the
mirror-slap induced vibration. The SLR cameras are also more slow and
difficult to focus, particularly in dim light. But there is every
accessory you might desire available for them, and the only option if
you want to shoot macro or do Polaroid test prints. Many of the newer
models have AE prism finders available, TTL flash metering, power
winders and most of the frills that 35mm SLR shooters become enamored
with. Because the SLR cameras all have a "system" of accessories,
they can more easily become a money pit than the rangefinder or TLR
cameras. With these, you learn to do the best you can with what
you've got.
All medium format cameras require some getting used to. It is sort of
like marrying a fat, ugly woman and then learning to make love to her.
You can do it, but you have to force yourself. Some people find the
initial experiences so objectionable that they git rid of the camera
before they ever become familiar with it. This is why there are so
many MF cameras on the used market in mint condition.
All medium format cameras produce big negatives, which is their
primary virtue. But they all have their drawbacks and shortcomings -
and the Hasselblad is no exception. But the Hasselblad is the closest
thing to an "all purpose" MF camera, which is why they are so popular
with so many different types of photographers. Like a Nikon F-series
camera, it is something you can never outgrow.
If you want to shoot landscapes while backpacking in the mountains or
bicycling then a rangefinder camera is a much better choice than an
SLR. But if you want to shoot macro pictures of bugs, an SLR can do
that while a rangefinder can't. A rangefinder is easier to focus in
dim light, but an SLR or TLR provides more precise framing. A TLR is
more handy and convenient to use than an SLR, but it isn't well suited
for eye-level shooting and the waist-level finder takes more getting
used to than the prism on an SLR.
I can almost promise that no matter what kind of MF camera you buy,
you will soon find some objectionable things about it. But these vary
from one photographer to the next, it depends on your shooting style
and subject matter, and you never really know until you've gained some
experience with the camera. I started with a TLR, then got a
rangefinder, then went through 2 different SLR systems, and finally
settled with the Mamiya 6 rangefinder. An MF camera is sort of like
your wife - you either love it or hate it. And if you love it, it
becomes quite easy to forgive its faults. But some divorces along the
way can be expected.
There is a book titled "The Medium Format Advantage," by author Ernst
Wildi. This discusses all of the ins and outs of the various types of
medium format cameras, medium format photography in general, and
contains a lot of valuable reference material that is difficult to
find anywhere else. I would highly recommend this book to anyone who
is considering getting into MF photography.
Gene Windell
Date: Sun, 08 Oct 2000
From: [email protected] (MPS)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: When To Move to MF?
"Nabil Esphahani" [email protected] wrote:
>I know there are a lot of pros and cons between 35mm and MF but I am >interested in feedback to one specific question: At what print size does >the MF become noticeably an advantage, assuming normal viewing and not >examination with a magnifying glass?
In a community darkroom setting with 6-8 of us developing prints
shoulder to shoulder in the same batch solutions, it's fairly easy to
pick out the MF prints even at 5x7 in the dim yellow glow. By the time
you get to 8x10's, the difference can be noticed across a well-lit
room. At 11x14 there is such an obvious difference that even folks not
normally interested in photography will notice creamier, richer
prints. Personally, that's about where I draw the distinctive
difference between 35mm and MF; somewhere between 8x10 and 11x14. The
improvement is quite noticeable well before that, but it's somewhere
around that range that most viewers will likely really appreciate the
difference in resolution even if they don't know how to comment on it
or account for it.
YMMV,
mps
Date: Sun, 08 Oct 2000
From: "Nicholas O. Lindan" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: When To Move to MF?
Nabil Esphahani wrote:
> I know there are a lot of pros and cons between 35mm and MF but I am > interested in feedback to one specific question: At what print size does > the MF become noticeably an advantage, assuming normal viewing and not > examination with a magnifying glass?
At contact print size.
Seriously, the difference in moving to MF is not resolution (although
it does improve) but the gradation in the photo.
This will be apparent in photos made with an old Netar folder picked up
for $15 as they will be with umpteen thousands of dollars of optical
exotica.
> I have never used MF. Probably my largest print would be 16x20, most often > 11x14 or 8x10.
Rent an MF for a week and give it a try. Or just buy an old folder on
spec - you will be pleasantly surprised at the results and the lack
of money required.
From: [email protected] (BHilton665)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Date: 08 Oct 2000
Subject: Re: When To Move to MF?
>From: "Nabil Esphahani" [email protected] > >I know there are a lot of pros and cons between 35mm and MF but I am >interested in feedback to one specific question: At what print size does >the MF become noticeably an advantage, assuming normal viewing and not >examination with a magnifying glass?
For my tastes 8x10's are fine with 35 mm, 11x14's are OK and 16x20's are
too big (though I own a couple of 16x20" wildlife fine art prints by Tom
Mangelsen ... you can see the grain but he wouldn't have gotten the images
with a larger format).
Medium format looks better than 35 mm at all print sizes but the
difference is small at 8x10. But a MF 16x20 has the same level of grain,
etc as a 35 mm 8x10 (based simply on the film size area).
This site has a table from a pro digital lab showing what the cross-over
points are for print size vs film size, based on scanning at 5,000 with a
Tango drum scanner and printing with a LightJet (pretty much the current
digital state-of-the-art).
http://www.westcoastimaging.com/wci/page/info/formatsize.html
>I have never used MF. Probably my largest print would be 16x20, most often >11x14 or 8x10.
If you plan on printing many 16x20's then get the medium format. If
you're happy with 8x10 or 11x14's I'd say stick with 35 mm or ease into MF
slowly.
Date: Sun, 8 Oct 2000
From: John Halliwell [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: When To Move to MF?
....
As has previously been mentioned, it's the tonal graduation that's the
biggest surprise when you go to medium format (assuming you've already
taken sharper prints for granted).
Just to put things into perspective, I used to shoot exclusively with
Pentax 35mm (using quality prime lenses and films like Ektar 100). I
tried a cheap 6x6 TLR (Lubitel 166U - about the cheapest you can get).
Immediately, the prints at 8x8 where so much better it was hard to
comprehend, they just had much better quality (sharpness was only
slightly better - from the cheap lens). The difference was truly
amazing, the tones just looked so much better.
I've since bought a Mamiya C330 and 645 Pro and a few lenses (purely on
the back of that experience).
>I have never used MF. Probably my largest print would be 16x20, most often >11x14 or 8x10.
If you print to 8x10 frequently, it's probably a good idea to get into
medium format. The extra film/processing cost is much lower than most
people realise, 120 print film is cheaper than equivalent 35mm. In the
UK, large prints (of either format) cost the same per print if you have
the whole roll printed (usually cheaper than just having 4 or 5 shots
printed separately later).
--
John
Preston, Lancs, UK.
Photos at http://www.photopia.demon.co.uk
Date: Sun, 08 Oct 2000
From: [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: When To Move to MF?
First of all, I agree with previous posters. I offer these three
additional nuggets for consideration:
1) Well-taken and exposed 35mm negs using quality optics and FINE-
GRAINED films will, indeed, blow wonderfully well to quite large sizes,
however.......
2) Same-same taken with MF will ALWAYS be better at ANY blown size and
3) As soon as you go to less-fine grained films the game blows wide
open in favor of MF. IMHO as soon as you move beyond 100iso in most
print films the gap begins to widen markedly. If you're talking 400iso
for example, big blow ups from 35mm can start looking a little like
colored cottage cheese.
Most of my work ends up as 4x6 postcard images. I almost always use
35mm for those projects. However, if I KNOW I'm going for large
finished product, I ALWAYS choose MF gear for those shots.
...
Date: 09 Oct 2000
From: [email protected] (FOR7)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: When To Move to MF?
I use an example with my first medium camera, a YashicaMat 124G, compared
with my 35mm stuff. At a 10"x10" full frame blow up of the 6x6 medium
frame it will yield results as good as a 3.5"x5" from 35mm in a given
area. Personally I am amazed when I hear comments about their not being
much of a difference between the two formats at 8x10 size prints. There is
less grain, more saturation, more detail and an overall 3-D like look to
the picture. Of course a lot depends on the quality of the printing of the
pictures themselves. Unless you print yourself or you're lucky enough to
have an excellent printer then your results may not meet your
expectations. I have reprinted 8x10 pictures that ended up having more
sharpness than machine made 4x6 prints made at some truely lousy one hour
places.
E.T.
[email protected]
Date: Fri, 1 Dec 2000
From: "Bastiaan A.Schupp" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: 645 vs 6x7
To be more precise:
24x35 55x43 55x55 55x67 55x75 55x84 4"x5"
24mmx35mm 1.00 0.36 0.28 0.23 0.20 0.18 0.07
55x43 2.82 1.00 0.78 0.64 0.57 0.51 0.18
55x55 3.60 1.28 1.00 0.82 0.73 0.65 0.23
55x67 4.39 1.56 1.22 1.00 0.89 0.80 0.29
55x75 4.91 1.74 1.36 1.12 1.00 0.89 0.32
55x84 5.50 1.95 1.53 1.25 1.12 1.00 0.36
4"x5" 15.36 5.46 4.27 3.50 3.13 2.79 1.00
(I took the real negative sizes)
[Ed. note: consider potential to go digital with future backs in new
buys...]
Date: Sun, 3 Dec 2000
From: John Halliwell [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Mamiya 645E vs Bronica ETRSi (repost due to PC clock date error)
Phil Humphreys
[email protected] writes
>Hi, > I have decided to take the plunge and go to MF rather than >Digital.
The right MF camera offers the option for digital later (although it's
currently the price of a house). If the MF camera has a removable back,
you can stick a digital back on it.
>In their basic Kit forms (cam + back + Lens) these cameras are similar >prices in the UK. > >The ETRSI only comes with WLF for this price wheras the 645E has >AE prism.
I was choosing a 645 SLR a couple of years ago and chose a Mamiya 645
Pro over the Bronica (I preferred a faster focal plane shutter and
didn't like the lack of an instant return mirror). However if your
choice is between the ERTSi and 645E (fixed viewfinder and back), I'd be
very tempted to go for the Bronica.
Other cheaper options are used bits of kit (either Bronica ERTS & ERTSi
or Mamiya 645 Super etc.).
If you really want an AE prism finder, they cost a fortune on their own
(easily 300UKP for some types). With this in mind I went straight for
the Mamiya 645 Pro SV kit (645 Pro body + lens + back + power winder +
AE prism). The winder and prism are cheaper versions that the full Pro
kit but work fine.
Various deals can be found from time to time (free backs, plain prism
finders etc.) so keep your eyes open. I got a free 120 back with my
Mamiya (from a voucher), which made the whole kit much more sensible
than buying used gear.
>Mostly my use will be outdoor landscapes .
I suspect a WLF will be quite useful for landscapes.
>Is there any definate difference between sharpness of the standard >lenses >on these cameras .. I have seen comments that Mamiya are soft >in comparison to the Bronica PE lens.
I doubt there will be a real difference between lens quality between the
two makes. The Bronica lenses all have leaf shutters in the lenses which
makes them more expensive.
>Would the best option to be to go with the ETRSI an dthen get a used >AE prism to try and keep costs down ?
Sounds like a good idea, but watch the prices of those AE prisms, you
might get a nasty shock.
--
John
Preston, Lancs, UK.
Photos at http://www.photopia.demon.co.uk
From: [email protected] (Magambo)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Date: 31 Dec 2000
Subject: Just developed my MF negs and...
They look amazing. MF rules. I can't believe the difference on a blow
up, even a small one - how good everything looks compaired to 35mm. I am
hooked. Mamiya 645 is my new buddy. have a good new year all, and thanks
for the advice.
Luke
Date: 11 Jan 2001
From: John Sparks [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Which MF for a newbie?
Ron [email protected] wrote:
>The usual (groan) question. I'm a 35mm photographer, interested in moving up >to MF for the obvious reason of greater image sharpness. I believe (perhaps >incorrectly) that the lens is nearly everything and one thing that attracted >me to Contax is the Zeiss lenses. I've looked at Mamiya, Bronica, etc, all >645s, it doesn't seem that any of them use Zeiss lenses. Am I being too much >of a purist? The downside is that Contax is just starting out with MF (is >this correct?) and I am a little uncomfortable getting version 1.0 of >anything. Also, it would be nice to be able to switch from 645 to 6x6 or >6x7. I take mostly cityscapes, etc., many at low light, at twilight, night, >etc.
As you go up in negative size, differences in sharpness become much less
noticable. I've used Hasselblad, Bronica, Rollie, Mamiya and various
older TLR's, view cameras and folders. With recent lenses I see no
consistant differences in sharpness between them and none are visible
except in careful side by side tests. Even most of the older cameras
have sharpness improvements over 35mm. My $150 Minolta Autocord is
easily sharper than anything I've used in 35mm and shows the much
smoother tonality that keeps me using medium format. It has only
slightly lower contrast than the newer lenses and this seems to help
tonality more than hurting it.
I can see differences in image quality at wide apertures, but I don't
necessarily like the Zeiss lenses better than the others (the Zeiss
110/2.0 is better than most but at f/4 the Bronica PG 110/4 Macro is
even better). At smaller stops (say f/11 or smaller), there are
virtually no visible differences between current medium format lenses
and few visible differences compared to many older lenses.
I find Hasselblad (or should I say Minolta) Accute Matte screens much
easier to focus in low light than the others, but don't particularly
like the ergonomics of Hasselblad cameras in general. I think having a
camera that is comfortable to use is going to have a much great effect
on your photographs than any differences between lenses. There is much
greater differences in handing between different medium format cameras
than there are between different 35mm cameras. Different cameras are
designed for more specific uses than in 35mm. For example, the best
camera for handheld use is very different from the best choice if you
will always use a tripod.
For cityscapes at low light you will be working on a tripod. For this
use, I'd probably choose something like a Linhof or Horseman field
camera or some kind of view camera with a roll film back so I could use
swings and tilts for improving depth of field and front rise for keeping
sides of buildings straight. If you want to switch from 645 to 6x6 to
6x7, nothing can beat the Fuji GX 680 III, you can do all of these with
the same camera and back with only the change of a small inexpensive
mask. The Fuji would also be a good choice for cityscapes since it has
front swing, tilt and rise, but only if you don't mind carrying a camera
this big and heavy.
John Sparks
Date: Tue, 02 Jan 2001
From: Godfrey DiGiorgi [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Dump 35mm for Med format?
It doesn't make sense to "dump 35mm" for medium format. The two formats
have different strengths and produce different results. I shoot both 6x6
and 35mm (as well as a host of smaller formats) ... each has its place
in making fine photographs.
MF produces larger negatives with greater tonal scale differentiation,
less grain, and more enlargeability. Important if you are making very
large prints a lot of the time in particular (16x20" or greater) or if
your usual subject matter is such that the greater tonal resolution and
lower grain are most important. MF systems cameras (either RF or SLR)
are substantially larger, heavier and more expensive than 35mm in
general (behemoths like Canon EOS-1vs, Nikon F5s, etc excepted). There
are generally fewer lenses available and those that exist are larger,
heavier and slower than the 35mm counterparts. There's less depth of
field with working with lenses of similar coverage in MF than in 35mm so
you need to stop down more. And of course film and processing are more
expensive per frame. Getting that quality out into a high resolution
digital scan is much more expensive too, for those (like me) who do all
their printing work from the digital domain: scanners of comparable
quality are significantly more expensive and require more RAM and disk
space to work with.
35mm's relatively small negative provides complementary benefits and
drawbacks. Yes, enlargability, tonal differentiation, grain all suffer
to some degree ... but the difference is mostly insignificant in the
sizes that most people print and use (4x6" to 12x18") presuming good
lenses and modern film. The upside is the tremendous range of lenses,
accessories available, relatively light weight/small/fast operation
cameras, greater DoF, much lower cost of film and processing, and easy
availability of scanners and digital processing capabilities.
You have to make your decisions on what equipment to use based upon what
is most important to your photography, that's all. I tend to shoot MF
very infrequently nowadays, since 35mm (and smaller!) is providing all
the print quality I need for the kind of expressive, fine artsy stuff
that I'm doing.
Godfrey
From Leica Mailing List;
Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2001
From: Jim Brick [email protected]
Subject: [Leica] Re: Large Format vs. Leica
There is no question here. It is oxymoronic to compare 35mm Leica and LF
and expect to se "no" difference. Place a 35mm camera with an APO/ASPH
lens next to a 4x5 camera with an APO/ASPH lens and take the same scene.
Use Tech Pan in the 35 and anything from Tri-X on down to Tech Pan in the
4x5. Make a 16x20 from the 35mm neg and a 16x20 from the 4x5 neg. Even a
moron could easily tell the difference. I've been using 35/6x6/4x5 for 50
years. Same film, same developer, everything from Hi Contrast Copy in H&W
Control, Technidol, Adox KB14, Pan-X, APX-25, Super-XX, Tri-X, in Rodinol,
W665, D-76 1:1, Xtol, Clayton P60, Neophen Red/Blue, T400CN in C-41,
etc... ad nauseam, and there is no mistake which is which. 35mm Leica vs
4x5. Like a Featherweight boxing a Heavyweight. Hello... Bam... out!
Using exacting and precision technique, 35mm Leica can perform
miraculously. Using incredibly shoddy technique, 4x5 can produce crappy
results. But it would take an effort to screw it up to where it looked
like ordinary 35mm. And it takes a Herculean effort to produce 35mm
results that could pass for LF. Unless, of course, real LF is sitting
right there also, then all bets are off.
Now what about color? I use Velvia in my 35 Leicas, 6x6 Hasselblad, and
4x5 Linhof/Schneider/Rodenstock/Nikkor. My 4x5 Velvia easily makes 48x60"
prints that look so real that it is difficult to tell that it's not the
real thing. It has not started to degrade and is the largest I can make.
My 6x6 makes it to 50x50" with no loss and is the largest I can make, but
Leica 35mm ASPH starts to degrade above 20x24. At 30x40 it is real obvious
that it is 35mm.
Jim
Date: Mon, 25 Dec 2000
From: "C.L.Zeni" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Leica vs Medium Format??
Heavysteam wrote:
> >True, but then again therer are plenty of serious amateurs with 2.8 > >lenses (Canon, Nikon etc.) with the F5s, 1Ns and 1Vs all around that > >same price range! ;-) > > Based on equipment cost per square MM of image, they aren't getting a very good > deal compared to the guy with the 6X7.
Was smacked upside my head with this fact when I got my first roll of
Provia 100 back after running it thru the 6x7. Holy cow, I was blown
away...made a MF believer out of me.
--
Craig Zeni - REPLY TO clzeni at mindspring dot com
http://www.mindspring.com/~clzeni/index.html
From Leica Mailing List:
Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2001
From: George Day [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Leica] OT MF RF
Apples and oranges. I have a Mamiya 7 system and have used 670 and 690
Fuji rangefinders (stupidly sold them, in fact). First of all, the
optics:
The optics are great. With the Mamiya, you get what are possibly the
sharpest lenses made for medium format. The downside is that, because it
is a range finder, you have to be extremely careful with depth of field.
Build quality is terrific. The cameras are easy to load and unload, they
are reliable and fairly rugged, for what they are.
Fujis are the Tonka Toys -- well, almost -- of the camera world. The body
is plastic and creaky, loading and maintaining proper film tension can be
tricky (until you get the hang of it, it's possible to fog film when
unloading). Whereas the mamiya is *silent* -- quiter than a Leica, by far
- -- the Fuji's shutter is surprisingly loud. Whereas the Mamiya's
viewfinder is bright and the focusing area contrasty and well-defined, the
Fuji's rangefinder is somewhat dim and the focusing area is a small fuzzy
dot. This can make life tricky, especially when you're shooting, say,
portraits from a tripod. OTOH, you get first-rate Fujinon large format
lenses and a fully manual body that will not fail you.
If you go to this address:
http://205.178.5.17/georgeday/test21
You'll see an example of a Fuji 670 at work. I was shooting off a tripod
in a very, very remote (not road access, let's put it that way) village in
guatemala. Only lighting was candles and the film was delta 3200 pushed
to 6400, aperture F8 or 11 at probably 1/4 - 1/8. This is a crummy scan
from the negative, but in the 16x20 the sharp areas are *sharp*, tonal
definition very good and contrast clear and crisp. Not bad for a cheap
plastic camera that doesn't even take batteries!
So, really, it boils down to your objectives. Personally, I would not
recommend the Fuji for hand-held shooting -- it's too big and goofy for
that. The mamiya is superb as a hand-held system. However, if you're
working off of tripods and only need one or two focal lengths, the fuji's
(or, for that matter, an old 500CM) are hard to beat. With the money you
save over the mamiya you can buy LOTS for film...or an extra M lens!
Julian Thomas at [email protected] wrote:
> I'm investigating adding MF to my Leicas adn thinking of the Mamiya 7 or > Fuji GW series. I find the Mamiya's bokeh a little too unlike my Leicas for > me. Has anyone got experience with the Fiji? > > Julian
Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2000
From: "Tom Thackrey" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Med. Format info help please :-)
[email protected] (MIDWORTH) wrote:
> 645 ratio is 8x10 insert ars preload cartrages unfortunatle they cannot be > changed mid reel like backs can they only speed up reloads
645 is a 2.25 x 1.625 inch negative, ratio is 1.38, 10x8 ratio is 1.25,
close but not exact.
7x5 ratio is 1.4 much closer.
--
Tom Thackrey
tom at creative-light.com
www.creative-light.com
Date: 09 Aug 2001
From: [email protected] (BHilton665)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Exposure resolution with MF
>From: "Rod Stark" [email protected] > >I am looking into MF for the first time, and have a question I haven't seen >addressed anywhere yet. I shoot mostly transparencies, and want 1/3 stop >exposure resolution. In 35mm, 1/3 stop exposure resolution is common. > >Now, having seen a few MF transparencies, I know this can't be a problem - >but I am still curious as to the resolution of MF systems. Can anyone tell >me if Bronica, Hasselblad, Mamiya, or Rollie offer systems or mechanical >lenses with 1/3 - or as was inferred from one source - infinitely variable >shutter speeds or apertures?
One way to get 1/3 stop granularity is to shoot in aperture priority mode
with a stepless shutter and vary the ASA, since the ASA numbers are very
close to 1/3 stop apart. This is how I bracket with Velvia.
[Ed. note: most lenses can be varied continuously between f/stops to
produce whatever exposure increment you want. Not all shutters can be so
varied, so check your manual first before assuming you can get
intermediate shutter speeds (esp. on leaf shutter cameras)....]
Date: Sat, 21 Jul 2001
From: Tony Polson [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.marketplace.medium-format
Subject: Re: a landscape photographer looking for med format camera
"Bill Van Antwerp" [email protected] wrote:
> Not to be rude, but wouldn't an investment in a good lens for the elan be > better. I know many people don't like 35 mm for landscapes, but the guys at > luminous landscapes seem to do OK. If it were me, until I got good images > with the 35 mm I wouldn't rush out and get a bigger camera. In my > experience (maybe I am just a bad photographer) I would only go to better > gear when my current gear was maxed out.
Hi Bill,
Speaking as someone who was totally determined to stay with 35mm and
sell landscape shots in competition with some very able MF and LF users,
I think you're wrong.
Recently I decided to respond to demand from customers of my retail
business and started doing wedding photography using Bronica ETRSi (645)
equipment. I also shot some landscapes with the ETRSi to learn the
camera and lenses. I then showed them to the picture editor to whom I
sell more of my work than any other, and whose daughter's wedding I will
be shooting in the next few weeks.
#1 Big Mistake. :-(
Now he wants me to shoot everything on 120 film, and has even asked me
to re-shoot several of my 35mm shots on 120. The reason is that his
reprographics guys (I shoot for calendars, picture postcards and travel
publications) find it much easier to extract adequate quality from 120
film than to extract ultimate quality from 35mm.
At least he's offering more money than before. :-)
Using top quality lenses on a 35mm camera (almost regardless of brand)
will never even begin to approach the overall image quality that's so
easily obtainable with 120 film - in my opinion.
Best regards,
--
Tony Polson
From: Long Stewart <[email protected]>
To: "'[email protected]'" <[email protected]>
Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2001
Subject: [Nikon] re:medium format v 35mm
John Owlett wrote:
John: Sorry I can't let you go by on that one. I use my Nikons
and a Mamiya-6 rangefinder 6x6cm each for about 50% of my
shooting. At 8x10, anyone could *easily* tell the difference between
medium format and 35mm.
I agree. I regularly shoot weddings on 35mm with a 105 Nikkor and on
medium format. Using the same film stock (Fuji 160 neg) the differences
are clear even at 7x5. As John says, it is not grain (which is not much of
an issue until 11x14 on 35mm, but tonality, smoothness and a more rich, 3
dimensional quality which medium format has. At 10x8, the differences are
very apparent.
Stewart