question-Medium Format: Why? When? How?

[cskn0125]

Hey guys,


I'm curious about medium formats. I know nothing about them.

Whats the deal with them. Why and when would I use one? Whats the benefit?

Thanks,

[Chandler.]

They can produce insane amounts of detail, with insanely huge file sizes, and I've only seen them used for critical work in portraiture and landscpe photography. Never used one before though.

[lostdoggy]

Thats a easy question to answer,

1. When you got lots of money and can afford to spend 20,000 to 30,000 for a body and a Digi Back.
2. If someone is willing to hand you one to use.
3. If you like film backs and don't mind switching back every 10 to 20 shots.
4. If you have strong arms to carry it around.

[sapearl]

I used them for 30+ years in wedding and event work, starting out with the venerable Mamiya TLR and moving up to Hasselblads. The huge negative as well as humongous bright viewfinder that usually accompany such cameras are wonderful to look at and gaze through.

I think I read somewhere that the amount of "information" contained on a standard 2 1/4 x 2 1/4 negative is around 50MB.

Another nice thing about shooting MF square is you never have to rotate the camera from portrait to landscape and vice versa. This is great when you use flash at a wedding. You can always have the flash positioned centered and above the lens and not have to worry about poor shadowing. These were great cameras in their day. That's one of the reasons why they modified the Hasselblad ELM for that little trip that NASA took back in 1969 ;) .

[sapearl]

Actually, I used to think that my Hasselblad, bracket and Metz flash was pretty heavy..... until I bought the 5D and 70-200L f/2.8 IS :lol:

Thats a easy question to answer,

1. .....4. If you have strong arms to carry it around.

[cskn0125]

Thanks guys. Thats sort of what I figured, just though I was missing out on some top secret info. Lol.

[DrPablo]

I'm mainly a large format shooter, but I LOVE medium format too. I have a Hasselblad 500 c/m with Zeiss 50, 80, and 150mm lenses, and I've rented a 250mm Zeiss Sonnar for Red Sox games.

MF cameras come in a few different varieties. There are SLRs, rangefinders, twin lens reflexes, holgas, and view cameras (i.e. large format cameras with MF film backs). All of these, including SLRs, are a much different shooting experience than small format cameras. There are also a number of different sizes, the most common being 6x4.5 cm, 6x6 cm, and 6x7 cm (though some panoramic cameras are as large as 6x17 cm).

The first joy of MF shooting is the viewfinder size. Absolutely incredible. Just big, bright, and gorgeous. The lenses are invariably amazing, and the optics of MF give you beautiful tonal transitions, bokeh, and enlargeability. Finally, there is a real joy of holding a MF negative or (especially) slide in your hand -- you don't need to squint and see it. It's big and impressive. Perhaps not as impressive as an 8x10 negative, but pretty impressive itself.

If you're interested in learning more, I'd suggest going to one of the following sites:

http://www.apug.org
http://www.photo.net
http://www.rangefinderforum.org

And my main forum, http://www.lightcafe.net, where there are a lot of us with MF experience with all kinds of different devices.

[sapearl]

No top secret Chris ;) altough I do miss the fantastic Zeiss optics of the Hassy lenses. And they are wonderfully crafted incredibly reliable machines.

That being said, there was no autofocus, no practical zoom, no variable ISO on the fly, and no instant gratification in the LCD :lol: . I got great scanned images of the negs from my lab, but those fees were killing me. Regrettably, I had to switch over.

[lostdoggy]

Actually, I used to think that my Hasselblad, bracket and Metz flash was pretty heavy..... until I bought the 5D and 70-200L f/2.8 IS :lol:

The last time I used a Hassy was when I was 16 years old and that was agest ago. But none the less it took some beautiful Pics.

[DrPablo]

No instant gratification, but you can switch ISO on the fly if you have a couple different film backs, of course. That just takes a second to switch. That's the main reason I chose a Hassy over a Mamiya rangefinder.

The only zoom I know of is the Schneider Variogon (something like 140-280mm). But coming from LF, I'd put Schneider glass up there with anything that comes out of Leica or Zeiss (if not above them).

To be sure MF is a slower process than modern small format devices. It feels quick to me compared with my view cameras (especially my 8x10). But different tools for different tasks. I think MF is a great choice for portraiture, for landscapes, and for general travel photography. The film costs aren't too bad either, especially if you do your own B&W (which is easy as can be itself).

[ssim]

I've been doing freelance photography for close to 30 years and until the advent of the DSLR I never supplied a job with 35mm, everything was done in medium format. This was done in either 6X7 or 645 film formats. I used a combination of Pentax and Mamiya equipment. The quality and detail over 35mm film was so much greater that I felt the customers deserved it. My costs were greater but in the overall scheme of things it worked to my advantage in how pleased the customers were with the outcome.

Even when I started with digital equipment, the 10D being my first, I still continued with medium format for my freelance work.

Once I got the 1DMKII and then added the 1DsMKII I felt comfortable enough with the quality to provide an all digital solution to my customers.

I have considered a medium format digital body and back but the expense is pretty considerable. I am at a stage in life where I really don't need or want this. The 1Ds provides quality that satisfies my customers want. I have a steady customer in an advertising agency and they are satisfied with this. If need be I can rent one of these and have done so a couple of a times. You really need the infrastructure to handle the file sizes that these backs put out.

I have been scanning my 6X7 negatives to digital files. The quality is still extremely good but the file size is huge. I have some files that I scanned at maximum quality and they come in around 275MB TIFF file.

The medium format is certainly not dead and it looks to be making somewhat of a minor comeback. Mamiya has just announced an affordable model. It is just around 10K. There are customers that demand the extra quality and resolution that these put out. You will find that most of these will be in advertising and fashion photography.

They have their place and, imo, will continue to do so.

[20droger]

What we need now is an 8×10 (200×250mm) digital LF camera with 1Ds pixel density. I figure you'd get 2 shots per 8GB card, so a card bank would be required. Or perhaps a 1TB internal drive with Bluetooth downloading.

[DrPablo]

They already have that for 4x5.

http://www.betterlight.com/

But for large format the backs are different -- they're scanning backs that you insert under the ground glass. That means that you need to be tethered to a computer. So this won't work very well if you're hiking with a 4x5 field camera.

[Derbyshire Weddings]

Having used Bronica for years, I am glad that we now have high speed sync with digital flashes. The joy of a leaf shutter with sync at any speed was a great loss when I first went digital. Still got my Bronica , hoping one day I can afford a digital back.

[airfrogusmc]

I'm mainly a large format shooter, but I LOVE medium format too. I have a Hasselblad 500 c/m with Zeiss 50, 80, and 150mm lenses, and I've rented a 250mm Zeiss Sonnar for Red Sox games.

MF cameras come in a few different varieties. There are SLRs, rangefinders, twin lens reflexes, holgas, and view cameras (i.e. large format cameras with MF film backs). All of these, including SLRs, are a much different shooting experience than small format cameras. There are also a number of different sizes, the most common being 6x4.5 cm, 6x6 cm, and 6x7 cm (though some panoramic cameras are as large as 6x17 cm).

The first joy of MF shooting is the viewfinder size. Absolutely incredible. Just big, bright, and gorgeous. The lenses are invariably amazing, and the optics of MF give you beautiful tonal transitions, bokeh, and enlargeability. Finally, there is a real joy of holding a MF negative or (especially) slide in your hand -- you don't need to squint and see it. It's big and impressive. Perhaps not as impressive as an 8x10 negative, but pretty impressive itself.

If you're interested in learning more, I'd suggest going to one of the following sites:

http://www.apug.org
http://www.photo.net
http://www.rangefinderforum.org

And my main forum, http://www.lightcafe.net, where there are a lot of us with MF experience with all kinds of different devices.

Kinda kick'n myself for dump'n my Hasselblads. I had couple 500 C/Ms and 50, 80, 120 and my favorite portrait lens a 180. The square format is a perfect format for portraits in my opinion. I know a guy that has one of those Leaf digital backs WHOA.... EXPENSIVE but WHOA.

[DrPablo]

I bought my Hasselblad earlier this year. I'd been shooting LF for around a year, and I wanted something to travel with. And I'd gotten very sick of returning from trips with 500 .RAW files to go through.

So I looked on Craigslist, and for $1400 found a Hassy 500 c/m with three film backs, a 50 f/4 distagon, an 80 f/2.8 planar, a 150 f/4 sonnar (all C T* editions), extension tubes, compendium shade, prism and waist level finders, and a bunch of other accessories (including some Zeiss softar filters and a cheesy Hasselblad canvas shoulder bag).

It's been a lot of fun (though there is a little bit of a learning curve with it).

I have no need for a digital back right now, but they're not going to be expensive forever. I can wait 5 or 10 years until they depreciate. Or I can just scan the negatives and slides. Works for me. I do this as a hobby, so I don't shoot volume and the cost/return issue isn't one I need to think about.

[airfrogusmc]

Paul,

The 50 is one awesome lens as is the 150. I had shot both large 4X5 format and 35mm for quit a while before getting my Hasselblads and it took me a while to see square. Maybe 6 months or so. I'm probably going to pick one again soon for B&W. Nothing like a beautiful silver gelatin print. Ink just can't get the look silver will give you.

Allen

[tylercooney]

To be sure MF is a slower process than modern small format devices. It feels quick to me compared with my view cameras (especially my 8x10). But different tools for different tasks. I think MF is a great choice for portraiture, for landscapes, and for general travel photography. The film costs aren't too bad either, especially if you do your own B&W (which is easy as can be itself).

I agree. I love shooting in 4x5 and really want an 8x10 or 11x14 view camera. If you don't use your 8x10 for landscapes or portraiture, what do you use it for? I enjoy shooting portraits with my 4x5, but only if the subject knows how to be still :).

[DrPablo]

I use my 8x10 for cityscapes and architecture mostly, but I'd like to use it for family portraits when I get a chance. But the main reason I have it is for alternative processes. I love cyanotypes, vandyke prints, argyrotypes, and I'm getting into gum bichromates, all of which require a large negative. They're nice in 4x5, but even better in 8x10. Some day I'll try platinum/palladium, but I'm not ready quite yet. An 11x14 camera plus a banquet camera (7x17 or 8x20) is my dream.

On 4x5 I shoot everything, including portraits. I also do all my color LF shooting on 4x5 (though I just bought a box of Astia for my 8x10). It's just too expensive to shoot color 8x10, and the 4x5 has more than enough resolution for anything I could possibly need.

[sapearl]

I only sold off my backup Hassy gear - still have the workhorse machine and lenses. Problem is I'm having too much fun with the 5D, autofocus, zooms and CS2 right now so the 'blad equipment sits in its lonely case.....:cry: . Perhaps one day I'll pick up a digital back and experiment in THAT direction.

Kinda kick'n myself for dump'n my Hasselblads. I had couple 500 C/Ms and 50, 80, 120 and my favorite portrait lens a 180. The square format is a perfect format for portraits in my opinion. I know a guy that has one of those Leaf digital backs WHOA.... EXPENSIVE but WHOA.

[Roy Mathers]

I did wedding photography for over thirty years, using a Hasselblad, and can testify to the superb build quality of the camera and the performance of the lenses. In fact, during the whole time I shot weddings, so self-respecting photography would shoot a wedding on anything less than medium format - certainly not 35mm! One of the other enormous benefits of the Hasselblad (and Bronicas etc) is that they synchronize at any shutter speed (fancy using fill flash at 1/1000th sec!)

Do I regret selling my Hasselblad and sundry lenses a few years back? You bet!

[20droger]

I did wedding photography for over thirty years, using a Hasselblad, and can testify to the superb build quality of the camera and the performance of the lenses. In fact, during the whole time I shot weddings, so self-respecting photography would shoot a wedding on anything less than medium format - certainly not 35mm! One of the other enormous benefits of the Hasselblad (and Bronicas etc) is that they synchronize at any shutter speed (fancy using fill flash at 1/1000th sec!)

Do I regret selling my Hasselblad and sundry lenses a few years back? You bet!
A characteristic of leaf shutters.

And you're only dollars away from going MF again.

[howzitboy]

.

So I looked on Craigslist, and for $1400 found a Hassy 500 c/m with three film backs, a 50 f/4 distagon, an 80 f/2.8 planar, a 150 f/4 sonnar (all C T* editions), extension tubes, compendium shade, prism and waist level finders, and a bunch of other accessories (including some Zeiss softar filters and a cheesy Hasselblad canvas shoulder bag).


wow, thats cheap cheap. Before just the 80 f2.8 cost more then that. I guess lotsa guys are getting outta film and taking the digital plunge.

[Roy Mathers]

And you're only dollars away from going MF again.

What do you mean?

[sapearl]

I think what he means is that it's become a buyer's market for much of the MF equipment out there. Deals can be had on Hasselblad, Bronica and Mamiya gear if you shop carefully.

Last fall I sold my 20 year old 500/CM body and 60mm lens. On a trade, the local pro shop wanted to give me a paltry $400, which is only about 1/4 of what I paid for it in 1998. They admitted up front that they'd hope to turn it around for twice that, and couldn't give me any more.

After a few months I was finally able to sell it to a private buyer for $825. She got a good deal because it was in very good condition. I did all right because it's a tough seller's market and could not have done better.

What do you mean?

[20droger]

What do you mean?
What sapearl said.

If you regret getting out of MF photography, go buy some MF stuff on the used market and get back into it. Prices are currently very good.

Nothing says you can't shoot both SF digital and MF film.

[Roy Mathers]

Thanks sapearl. A twenty-year-old 500CM, eh? And I bet it was working as good as new! That's Hasselblad quality!

[sapearl]

You're welcome Roy ;) . Yes, it was a beautiful machine, previously owned by a doctor who took very good care of it. For a little over $2K I got his '87 body, the normal 80mm lens, a 12exp back and a (probably) 30 year old 60mm WA lens.

All of this was from a local camera shop where I'd been shopping since the late '60's... a really great place with knowledgeable folks. For what I got it was a pretty decent deal, with an excellent warranty and return policy.

Thanks sapearl. A twenty-year-old 500CM, eh? And I bet it was working as good as new! That's Hasselblad quality!

[DrPablo]

It is a buyer's market, especially for the hardy stuff on the used market.

But the four MF systems that seem to really hold their value are the Hasselblad system, the Mamiya rangefinder system (especially the 7 and 7ii), the Rollei 6008 system, and the Fuji 690 rangefinder. You can find good deals though (like I did) if you look hard enough. It's pretty routine to find a Hassy 500 c/m with the 80/2.8 planar and a film back for $500 or $600.

The real deals are for the Bronica, the Mamiya RB67 and RZ67, and some of the TLRs. Some of the older stuff is really cheap too -- I'm probably going to cough up $60 to buy an old Russian 6x9 folding rangefinder. That's a huge negative, and the larger your neg the less critically dependent you are on top glass.