Medium Format Regret?

K

ktmrider

Well-known
Local time
2:46 AM
Joined
Dec 12, 2007
Messages
1,363
So, I am interested if anyone here went to a medium format and was disappointed and returned to either digital or 35mm. I have shot 35mm since 1970 and am generally happy with the results. I have used a 500CM a few times in the past and liked those results as well.

Now, I have a chance to trade one of my M2's for a 645 system. On another thread, there were several comments that the 6X4.5 negative is not enough of a difference from 35mm. Now, I know the bigger the negative, the better but that is compromised by bigger cameras, more expensive film (exposures per roll), etc.

I am trying to decide on getting a 645 for a trade or getting a bigger system. Comments?
 
i used the mamiya 645 for a long while...beautiful negs and images from the 645.
went back to 35mm for no real reason, probably just wanted a change...and back to medium format with 2 mamiya 6 bodies and then on to digital mostly because i got tired of the darkroom.
 
I went from 645 folder to 4x5 monorail view. Big doesn't mean better at all in final results to me. And I'll have 645 SLR for sale soon. Compared it with cheap 35mm SLR, lens for close up portraits, the hassle with MF is not worth of slightly better tonal range and little bit more sharpness.

Also sold "35" FF digital rig with sharp expensive digital lenses. Not worth it at the end comparing to modern lenses dedicated for APS-C sensors.

But... What is the final result for you? Counting pixels on huge monitor? Wall, room size landscapes prints?
Slightly deeper tonal range what nobody else but you could pay attention and consider as something huge in terms of how image looks like overall and its message?
I don't have any needs for this.

With digital, 3000 pixels at the longer side JPEG1 files are absolutely enough for me for 27-inch screen and for 8x10 prints.
And on film, after I printed my first portrait with collapsible Cron on 8x10 in the darkroom the MF was done and gone for me. I aslo have seen original prints from Meyerowitz, Winogrand and Zimbel on much larger darkroom prints. They are worth of asking price. Those three used mostly Leicas for photography were moment was captured. I have also seen Meyerowitz big color prints from LF. Honestly, paintings are way better for same subjects.
And Jane Bown portraits taken with nothing special but Oly OM are as good as Yousuf Karsh 8x10 camera taken portraits if looking at them in the book.

With MF everything is bigger, slower and less handy. Some like it, me not.
 
Honestly i would go for something above 645 simply because IMO youre not feeling the real magic of medium format with anything below 6x6
 
When I compare images from my Mamiya 645, Rollei 2.8 or 3.5, Fuji 690... 35mm does not even come close.
Yeah 6 by 6 and up is better than 6 by 4.5, but I find it strange that there are some that say 645 is close to 35mm. It is not. All you gotta do is drop a 35mm neg on top of a 645 one and see...

35mm is fantastic for so many things (and I shoot it all the time) but from an imaging perspective it cannot compare to the larger formats.

The only downside I see to my 645 ProTl system is the size if that matters.
 
I've never understood the people who say 645 isn't big enough of a difference. If the equipment is good you can definitely tell the difference. That being said, I do find a 645 SLR (such as the mamiya I own) to be a hassle. I much prefer the fuji GA645, but some people don't like the lack of manual controls. It is still a great camera.
 
valid^

I've had Bronica SQ-A, Rolleicord Va, Holga, Mamiya 6, Mamiya 7 but am currently just running Pentax 67 and a Fuji G690BL. However all cameras above with the exception of the holga could destroy 35mm in terms of enlargement.
 
Well, I have two M2's, a Leica R6.2, a Nikon F and a Leica M9. I have an M5 on the way from Sherry. I have a friend who has both a Pentax 645N and Mamiya 645 who wants one of my M2's. Funny thing is I sold this friend a 500CM about two years ago and he will not sell it back.

The M9 takes care of any digital urges I have but I have been shooting more TriX so thinking the larger negative for landscapes. Am not in a hurry to do anything but presently gathering information.

I think there might be a medium format revival underway. Have been looking at various websites for mf gear and presently it is pretty rare to find a blad or mamiya 67 on b&h, KEH etc. Guess I should expand my search to eBay.
 
iamzip said:
That being said, I do find a 645 SLR (such as the mamiya I own) to be a hassle. I much prefer the fuji GA645, but some people don't like the lack of manual controls. It is still a great camera.
Click to expand...

To make it worth it you need to use it for its intended purposes.
The 645TL is so big because it has the detachable backs. If you do not need to have changeable backs (which is so nice to be able to use different films w/o having to complete the roll etc), or interchangable lenses, or relatively fast lenses, or interchangeable finders, or even interchangeable drives! - then yes a smaller mf like your GA, or a GF670 makes more sense.
 
I use 645 mostly like on holidays (together with a 6x17) and day outs when I expect to shoot a lot of film. Otherwise I go up to 6x9. I don't like 6x6 or 6x7. Always slides, rarely b&w (2-3 film a year) never colour negative.

Those who think that you need larger than 6x4.5 to get medium format need to look at some projected slides from 645.

You really need to think about what you want. 645 is great when you want to take it along and want everything from wide angle to short tele. I normally take a 645 kit with 35/55/80/150 and that is portable, even for a 2 week holiday strolling around towns, visiting museums, churches etc. I'm not a mountain hike freak. 6x6 is an option if you can do everything you want with a single or 2 lenses. 6x9 and more than one lens...did it once, never to be repeated. Now if you stay in a studio or within armlength of the car this changes.

Probably those that find a 645TL too large don't think twice to take a laptop, 2 chargers, a usb HD and a tablet along any hassle at all.
 
When I started getting into photography I mainly used a Mamiya 645AF, then got Hasselblads.
But for how and what I shoot 35mm rangefinder works the best.
Though I did just grab an interesting medium format camera so we'll see if I change back to medium format more than 35mm.
 
Some 645 cameras are almost as fast and easy to use as 35mm.
Not so most larger format cameras. IMO 645 is a nice compromise.

That said I no longer own or use any medium format cameras, and don't miss them.
For my uses (wet prints up to 8x10" and scans to PC) 35mm is fine, and less expensive.

Chris
 
ktmrider said:
Well, I have two M2's, a Leica R6.2, a Nikon F and a Leica M9. I have an M5 on the way from Sherry. I have a friend who has both a Pentax 645N and Mamiya 645 who wants one of my M2's.
Click to expand...

Simple- have your friend lend you the 645s. Use them. See if the negatives make enough difference for you. Decide.

I have no regrets on any 35mm equipment I've gotten rid of. Medium format, yes, regrets. But realize that I haven't shot 35mm film in a few years, having decided that digital filled that space better than film for me. While no digital, at least within my budget, can fill the space of medium format, including 645.
 
I never "connected" with any system cameras although the Contax 645 may get another go (loved the 145mm).

I still use regularly a half dozen folders and TLRs in 6x6,6x7 and 6x9.
Most are old and one is very modern compared to the rest (fuji GF670).
If you desire the look of 6x6 or larger 35mm in film or digital can not compare. (dof at given FL and tonality etc.)

Odd as it might seem, I take my GF 670 for low light situations.
At my youngish age, It can be handheld to 1/8th and the quality of a 1600 iso frame is on par with a 400 iso 35mm frame (often cleaner in a hybrid workflow).
 
Jake Mongey said:
Honestly i would go for something above 645 simply because IMO youre not feeling the real magic of medium format with anything below 6x6
Click to expand...

Agreed, but more because I don't like the 4/3 ratio. And you can buy some really cheap 645 systems instead of getting rid of a M2.
 
My first camera was a ZI Netter 6x9, which still takes amazing pictures with its uncoated anastigmat lens. I use the camera from time to time, to "go back to my roots".

I recently traded a Hassy 500 for a Leica IIIf. The Hassy performed as I expected, but the kit was so heavy I seldom used it. Basically, its more fun to shoot 35.
 
I've had a few MF cameras but sold all but two (a) multiformat (6x4.5, 6x6, 6x7, 6x9, 6x12) pinhole and (b) Minolta Autocord. All the MF cameras I've shot with (including a 6x4.5) offered significant imaging improvement over 35mm, but they were extra hassle, slower to load and shoot, and difficult to extract the improved imaging without setting up a MF-capable darkroom. (For digital printing, I've found that flatbed scanners just don't do very well with large negatives that sag -- I never ponied up for a Nikon 9000 and can't afford an Imacon. With my pinhole negatives the flatbed quality issues are, well, mostly irrelevant to be honest.) So, while I don't "regret" my MF forays per se, I rarely shoot the Autocord and can't see purchasing another MF camera anytime soon. But that's mostly because I don't photograph landscapes, urbanscapes, or even static subjects very often. If I was go back to taking slower photographs, I'd be more likely to go back to MF and have more incentive to pick up a Nikon 9000 or get a MF enlarger. Until then, 35mm it is for me.

EDIT: But really, you have to try and see for yourself. There is no other way.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom