Medium Format Regret?

I just started with MF. Previous film to digital experience with 35mm left me disappointed, but the files I get back now are just amazing. I am using a 6x7 and a 6x6 camera and for landscape photography they are drastically better than 35mm and even my FF digital Canon.
 
One doesn't need massive prints to see the differences.
Medium format gives rich creamy prints easily seen in good 6"x6" size.
The tonal range is superb.
Landscapes easily done.
So what's not to like?

The cost factor.
Film and processing all expensive.
The equipment way bulkier and heavy.

Mamiya C series in my studio.
Heavy duty work and stunning results.
Moved to Pentax 6x7.
Wanted the rectangle, not square format.
Hated I couldn't proof a roll on 8"x10".
small but irritating.
Pentax weight awesome.
Traded for Leica M6.

Get a Rollei TLR or 645 Mamiya/Pentax.
Use it and enjoy.
PS. I kept a Rollei TLR.
 
Last edited:
MF is MF is not MF is not MF. I notice there are more diverse form of cameras in MF rather than 35mm which tend to be more similar.

I would second some research and trying out. TLRs and RFs can give a lot of neg for the weight. My Fuji 6x9 weighs 1,5kg as does a Nikon F5 with a light lens. However, very different approaches.

I kind of dropped 35mm for 6x9 because I am slow and methdoical. However, 35mm is so obiquitous and easy that I have a cheaply bought Nikon AF that feels like a P&S. At the moment 35mm works as convenient and more on the auto side vs the Fuji which is fully manual and unmetered.

For the perception I have about the trade of the M2, you may get a quite decent option. 645 SLRs are not in the same line of handling as 35mm RF. I would veer towards the 120 RF such as the Mamiyas, Fujis, Bronica.
Some MF cameras can be found for quite low prices nowadays too, so you can complement formats.


<Beamed through Tapatalk relay>
 
It's telling that your friend will happily depart with the 645 but not the 500 isn't it?
If I were you I'd keep the M2s, you seem to enjoy travelling with the pair of them. If you have the urge to move to MF, trade something else for it.
Also, get what you want rather than what is convenient, it'll be worth it in the long term.
 
Trying Both 645's

Trying Both 645's

Well, I have been shooting the past week with both the Pentax 645N and the Mamiya 645. I could get spoiled by the 645N as I have never had an auto exposure/autofocus camera. The Mamiya is outfitted with a 80f2 manual lens. I don't mind the manual focus but it does not even have auto aperture so must be closed down manually before shooting.

And my friend Jason has stated that the blad is so much more reliable then the auto and electric (7 AA batteries) 645's.

The main reason to trade an M2 is it is hard to justify 3 film M bodies with the M5 I have coming from Sherry. I just don't shoot that much unless I am traveling.

I appreciate all the comments. I am still undecided about 6x4.5 being large enough. I recently pulled some 6x6 transparencies out for the light table from when a 500CM was my only camera and all I can say is WOW.
 
There is the rub that the bigger format needs longer (usually slower) lenses for the same FOV and that comes with some DOF issues you might not initially consider. But MF does bring a different look that I wouldn't ever give up. I shoot 35, 120 and 8x10. Each has a unique look.
 
I have a buddy and we both shoot MF...

I am using a Mamiya RB67 with the K/L 90 f/3.5 L... in a nutshell, if you are scanning for the internet, then the larger negative might not bring that much as seen from the average viewer.

This week I have been using the RB67 with B&W and Color, plus the tripod, three backs, and a meter... it's not kit to move around with and I have been using a bicycle ; ). Shooting landscapes and historical sites this time around. My other cameras on this trip are a Nikon F3P w/ 50mm f/1.2 and a Fuji X100T.

Just enjoying myself in Karuizawa, Nagano Prefecture.
 
Based on recent experience with a Pentax 645, for me it obliterates 35mil film. And the Pentax is really no larger than a pro digital 35mm body.
 
A friend has an 11X14 Mary Ellen Mark print on the wall. Shot with a 4X5. It doesn't have to be a large print to justify large format. The image jumps right off the wall, much different than 35mm or medium formats, even at modest sizes.
 
leicapixie said:
One doesn't need massive prints to see the differences.
Medium format gives rich creamy prints easily seen in good 6"x6" size.
The tonal range is superb.
Landscapes easily done.
So what's not to like?

The cost factor.
Film and processing all expensive.
The equipment way bulkier and heavy.

Mamiya C series in my studio.
Heavy duty work and stunning results.
Moved to Pentax 6x7.
Wanted the rectangle, not square format.
Hated I couldn't proof a roll on 8"x10".
small but irritating.
Pentax weight awesome.
Traded for Leica M6.

Get a Rollei TLR or 645 Mamiya/Pentax.
Use it and enjoy.
PS. I kept a Rollei TLR.
Click to expand...

Pretty much agree. I'll comment that the difference in qualities between 35mm and 645 is HUGE. People who don't think it is may not have eyes. It's not just about sharpness when enlarging, but also about grain, tonality, and control over depth of field. The difference between 645 and 6x6? Not as big of a deal.

As for bulk, there are plenty of medium format cameras that are no bigger than 35mm SLRs of the same era. Heck, some of the smaller ones, like the Ricohflex are surprisingly compact:
sizes by Berang Berang, on Flickr

Left to right: Fed 3 RF, Ricohflex TLR, Edixa SLR. The Ricohflex is peculiarly small, and yes pretty crude, but a Rolleicord is only marginally larger and much more sophisticated. One doesn't have to have a bulky, heavy camera to enjoy medium format.
 
Seems I'm part of the minority. I like 35mm for its rougher aesthetic qualities and when I want more resolution I use an APS-C digital. I was initially enticed by the promise of super high resolution negs and while I did get some tonally beautiful prints I have never personally gotten significantly more than 20mp out of a 6x6 negative. In the end it wasn't really worth the hassle for what I wanted it for. I might change my tune if I come across a reasonably priced digital back, but otherwise I think if I were seriously thinking of going bigger than 35mm I would go LF.
 
I don't know why everyone gets so worked up over the size of the negative. Anything in the MF world will amaze you when compared against 35mm film.

This is my advice. If this is your first real step into medium format, forget the size of the format, find the camera you like. If you get a camera you like you won't care about whether or not it is 6x4.5 or 6x9.

I have four medium format cameras I use regularly. The Fuji GA645, the Rolleiflex 3.5 MX/EVS, the Arax 60 (love those Zeiss lenses), and the Pentax 645Nii. Two are 6x6 and two are 6x4.5. Two are system cameras and two are fixed lens. Two depend on batteries and two do not. One is a rangefinder (more or less), two are SLRs, and one is a TLR.

Irregardless of the differences or similarities, the negatives from all 4 cameras are totally awesome because all 4 cameras have totally awesome lenses.

One more piece of advice. Once you get your camera, buy a few rolls of Fuji Velvia or Provia. Your jaw will absolutely drop when the transparencies come back from the lab. If you are not hooked right there on the spot then you should immediately sell the camera and return to 35mm. :)
 
As I posted earlier, I have owned and used a 500C/M for a couple years back in the 1980's and again about two years ago. In the 1980's, it was my primary camera and used it on safari in Kenya with Ektachrome. I still have my 6x6 projector and have several prints made from the slides on my wall. I think I was using either a 250 or 350mm lens on the blad.

The advantage of the Pentax 645N is Jason has several lenses for it as part of the trade, including a fairly expensive 45-85 zoom. So even if I trade one M2 I still have two M film bodies and 6 lenses in M mount.
 
To the OP - I've never regretted MF. I still prefer it, after shooting with it almost solely for 5 years.

It's not just the tonality (even though that's really nice). The lenses have different designs to project a larger image circle. And for a wide-angle shot, you've got the longer lens 'look'. The rendering of LF and MF is just too good for me to give up. Does this mean I 'give up' something for those renderings? Sure it does. I give up convenience and quick shooting. But I've really found there are few photos I've taken that are print-worthy that were shot really quickly. So MF/LF it is. I may change.
 
Mark Cuban once said, "Go big, or don't go."

6x4.5 is kinda inbetween for me: a compromise.

The Mamiya 6 mentioned by Joe is a great camera.

Cal
 
I recently picked up a Mamiya Pro outfit in some horse trading. Neat outfit. I've owned a lot of medium format outfits in my life but I always come back to one.

The Rolleiflex 3.5F
Smaller and lighter than most 35mm SLR cameras. The 6x6 negative is nothing but a 6x4.5 negative waiting to be cropped (wait till you try to take a vertical picture with the 645 SLR). Fantastic lens. Silent. Flash sync'd at all speeds.

Buy the Mamiya. Get the original Mamiya 645, dirt cheap. Keep the M2 or you'll regret it.
 
Started with 35mm film, then added 6x7, 6x6, 6x4.5 afterward. But, would never substitute one for the other. I always felt i wanted both. Each for different purposes or occasions. Disappointments were always my own fault, or unrealistic expectations. I did feel, when i was trying to shoot fashion, that MF was 'limiting' versus 35mm film, because 35 was much more mobile and responsive. But, in the end, when i selected the image to use, i always wanted it to be on the bigger film.

I started with an RZ, then switched to Pentax 67 because i thought using it would be closer to using my EOS, but then i went to Mamiya 645AF, because THAT would surely be closer to using the EOS, and then i went back to Pentax, and then to Hassy, and now i'm back to the RZ. Having used almost everything, i went back to the largest film size with the 'best' lenses. Still love the Hassy 203FE, but felt that was best for travel and the RZ was better for composed studio/setup stuff.

I do believe 645 is enough of a step 'up' from 35mm, but it really depends on what you want to shoot and which films you use and if resolution is the end all, be all.
 
Can I echo sentiments above that even at 645 the "pop" is visceral?
Don't underestimate the value of the, in many ways, more forgiving larger formats. Even the simplest gear yields quality. The "AmateurPhotographer" magazine in the UK was often want to post shots from a TLR Seagull which sold and still sells for nearly less than a box of 5 x 120 against the best 35mm from Leica or Zeiss and it was no competition.
As this thread is woefully short of pictures here is a half plate shot, lens from 1904 and the body dated 1899, Waterhouse stops and shutter is you taking off the cap and counting:

15183330283_27f7788f7e_b.jpg


Scan on a V850, negative is about 15 years old, can't remember the stock I'd need to look up the notch code.

15804351772_5b8fda6737.jpg


Granted, street work is a challenge.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom