Why do you use a MF camera? Why not?

[FallisPhoto]

I wonder why people use medium format cameras if they don't make very large prints from the negatives or transparencies. It seems to be the main reason for using MF cameras [or even LF] over 35mm cameras. There have been discussions about this topic at RFF. The debate had been about "details" that are visible on MF scans versus 35mm scans of the same size. For example, if you get 4MB files from scanned negatives, can you detect finer details in a MF scan versus a 35mm scan? Why or why not?

If you stop making prints or asking for prints, and you get only scans, would it be a waste of money to use MF cameras?

How do you feel about the superiority of MF cameras over 35mm cameras for extra details?

Well, after buying all these cameras, I figured I'd better do something with them.

 

[raid]

I started using MF cameras before I started using RF 35mm cameras and before scanning was offered by stores. Over the years, "things" have changed [maybe], and that's why I saw the thread timely somehow.

 

[Ron (Netherlands)]

Because MF film is hard to acquire here, I sold almost all my MF Bessa's and am now selling my Rollies.

 

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

Because MF film is hard to acquire here, I sold almost all my MF Bessa's and am now selling my Rollies.

That sucks, MF film is easy to get in the medium to large sized cities in the USA and it is fairly cheap. About $4 a roll for Kodak or Ilford black & white, $3 for Fuji black & white. Color films are usually about $5 a roll. Places like Freestyle sell the eastern European films like Efke and Foma real cheap, $2-$3 a roll.

 

[nikon_sam]

Lately my personal work has been with the Mamiya 645 and a Yashicamat 124...
I've been shooting with these more than with a 35mm camera when it comes to B&W film...

I also do my own wet printing so having a bigger neg is sooooo much nicer to work with even though my biggest print would be 8x10...
Beside have you seen a print made from a neg shot with a Yashicamat 124...sweet stuff...

 

[CK Dexter Haven]

Without top-class technique, processing and scanning, all the advantage of MF over 35mm remains theoretical.

With wet printing the difference is readily visible of course.

I don't think this is necessarily true at all. I don't do anything differently, whether i shoot with a 203FE or Leica R7/Zeiss Ikon. Either camera is shot in AE or metered with the camera and shot on manual for specific circumstances or purposes. Film is developed by the same lab. I scan at home with either a Minolta 5400 (35mm) or Epson 4990 (120/220). The Epson is 'technically' the better scanner, and yet the better results always come from the MF film. Nothing theoretical about it. The differences are clear, even when the slower, finer-grained film is shot in the 35mm camera.

Perhaps you should define "top-class technique." Maybe i've become a top-class photographer without even knowing it....

 

[Bob Michaels]

Without top-class technique, processing and scanning, all the advantage of MF over 35mm remains theoretical.

I find the differences to be very real everyday. I shoot the same film (Neopan 400) in both 120 & 35mm. Shoot them the same way (always hand held). Develop them the same, frequently together in the same tank. Scan them with the same scanner (Minolta Multi Pro). Do the same things in Photoshop. Print on the same printer with the same paper.

The prints from the bigger neg consistently look better than those from 35mm.

Now there are advantages to shooting 35mm. That is why I use both.

But in the final analysis this is a case where size matters.

 

[Doug]

I take my negs in to the local pro lab for negative development and scans only. The scans are 1000 pixels per linear inch, so for 35mm they come out 2000 x 2992 pixels, a 5.72 Mp scan. Avg jpg file size about 2.3 Mb.

They do the same pixel density for 645 and 6x7 scans, but since their proportions are shorter in relation to the width, they're 2000 x 2696 and 2000 x 2504, so actually smaller scans than from 35mm.

Still, there's a difference in the look, even with the same Fuji Pro film type. There's an added something, I think made up out of a lot of factors contributing in small ways. A richness in the shadows, color density and transitions, smooth bokeh, probably due to lesser degree of enlargement from the original. Comparing 35mm with slow fine-grain film vs MF with faster film, 35 closes much of the gap but the degree of enlargement is still different and this affects the bokeh at least.

I use my MF cameras in pretty much the same way I do 35mm, portability and speed of operation aren't important differences, as I don't use old folders or press cameras; I'm as likely to run meterless-manual or full AF/AE with both 35 and medium formats. I prefer 220 size film in MF and 24exp in 35 when available, so even the number of exposures isn't that different, and yet I still seem to get a bit better "hit rate" from MF for unknown reasons... But 35 is fun to use because of all the variations and combinations in the gear. 😀

 

[mh2000]

I think the 4990 is kind of junk myself... it gives usable images from MF film, but my Coolscan V kills the results... I like shooting MF though...

>>I scan at home with either a Minolta 5400 (35mm) or Epson 4990 (120/220). The Epson is 'technically' the better scanner, and yet the better results always come from the MF film.

 

[ChrisN]

Without top-class technique, processing and scanning, all the advantage of MF over 35mm remains theoretical.

Why thank you! I'll take this as a compliment about my processing and scanning, as even I can see clearly the difference between my results with 35mm (Leica lenses) and my medium format efforts (with Zeiss lenses). 🙂

 

[varjag]

Without singling them out, I have seen examples in this forum where an advantage of MF is unconvincing.

Of course the size matters, but a lot of folks overstate the difference they get between the formats. Some produce both lousy 35mm and 120, others do fairly OK 120 while totally trashing 135 with flatbed or minilab scans.

It's like with wet printing, a lot of people who are most vocal about it don't make very good darkroom prints. It doesn't mean of course that wet darkroom is inferior 🙂

 

[Frank1969]

I live in the Netherlands and I have no problem at all in buying rollfilm. My local smalltown camerashop has Kodak portra in stock but I usually buy Fuji through internet from http://www.fujilab.co.uk/catalog/

Usually all film is in stock and is deliverd within a few days.

 

[shadowfox]

Potential.

That's the difference. A well exposed 35mm shot is awesome to behold, until you've seen the same scene shot on bigger film format with equal skill.

 

[FrankS]

I use a MF camera whenever the highest degree of technical quality is desired, and when the portability and quick shooting capabilities of a small format camera are not required. I use MF to prevent film format let-down (which is similar to lunch bag let-down).

 

[dazedgonebye]

A really well executed 35mm shot should meet my needs. Thing is, I don’t always nail that mark. Sometimes it’s me, sometimes it’s because of hurried work under bad conditions.
With medium format, I’ve got more room for being an inadequate photographer and I’m forced (usually) to slow down.
Because you can never get enough of a good thing, I’m about to start shooting 4x5.

 

[Tuolumne]

I have a small (4x6) print of my grandson made from a scan of a MF transparency (6x7 cm) in my living room. The image fairly jumps off the page it is so full of detail, color, life, etc. As others have noted, even at small print sizes a MF image looks very different from a 35mm image. That doesn't mean I use MF all the time. Quite the contrary. But when I do, I can see the difference right away, no matter what I do with the transparency/negative.

/T

 

[Tuolumne]

I think the 4990 is kind of junk myself... it gives usable images from MF film, but my Coolscan V kills the results... I like shooting MF though...

>>I scan at home with either a Minolta 5400 (35mm) or Epson 4990 (120/220). The Epson is 'technically' the better scanner, and yet the better results always come from the MF film.

I get excellent results from my Epson 4990 using Silverfast SE Plus (both 35mm and MF). Nothing to be ashamed of or make excuses for there.

/T

 

[Tuolumne]

Personally, when I am carrying MF my hit rate for keepers goes up. I take more care.

Regarding shot count per roll..... When I take out my GA645Zi loaded with 220, I get 30-31 shots per roll. I get autofocus, metering (aperture preferred or manual), I get manual focus over-ride, and I get a 55-90 zoom (roughly 38-75 eq to 35mm).

I am carrying a camera that is marginally larger than 35mm, but not exceedingly so. I get 3 times the neg area of 35mm. I am carrying better glass than almost every 35mm I ever owned.

My pictures are often also better because I tend toward a monopod, or even a tripod when shooting Medium Format. I tend toward rangefinders or leaf shutter cameras, for no mirror slap.

And, when I have had my wheaties and am feeling particularly robust, I pick up my GSW690III for the "Big Shot".

I know we are supposed to answer this poll disregarding print size, but the 3X and 6X increased size of both of the formats I use translates into some huge advantage in printing enlargements. And that's without the discussions of increased tonality and IQ often found with MF lenses.

The GA645zi is a truly outstanding picture maker. The lens is one of the best I have ever used, and I have most of the high end Leica glass for 35mm. The 645zi is a bargain by comparison.

/T

 

[mh2000]

not ashamed or making any excuses for the Epson... just in a direct comparison, the Nikon Coolscan is just so very much better at lifting information from a negative than the flatbed... I'm just too cheap to pony up the cash to get a *real* MF scanner.

I get excellent results from my Epson 4990 using Silverfast SE Plus (both 35mm and MF). Nothing to be ashamed of or make excuses for there.

/T

 

[narsuitus]

Even though I develop my own medium format black & white and slide film, I do have my medium format color print film developed by a professional lab. Therefore, I placed my vote for “developed negatives/transparencies.”

I usually have the lab print my color print film. However, I usually scan and print my own black & white negative film and color transparency film.