Medium Format Regret?

[BernardL]

iamzip : I've never understood the people who say 645 isn't big enough of a difference.

They happen to own a 6x7 or larger and need to justify their choice.

 

[LukeBanks]

i prefer shooting 6x7 as i love how it prints, but my pentax 67ii is just not really a handheld camera, so i have others for handheld. so now you can have handheld cameras, like the fuji rangefinders or the mamiyas and tripod cameras like the pentax 67. all produce negs that will give results that are just draw dropping when you have you workflow maximized.

so for me 35mm and 120 are used based on the situation. I just see them as toosl and which tool is best for this project.

Couldn't agree more.

 

[stompyq]

Couldn't agree more.

Completely disagree. The Pentax is a wonderful handheld camera. Why in the world would you only shoot it lashed to a tripod?

 

[Prest_400]

I would like to try a Mamiya RF, Bessa III/GF670 and Rolleiflex. Very attractive. Infact I veer towards lighter and portable as much as possible. An RB67 seems to big and heavy for me.

Completely disagree. The Pentax is a wonderful handheld camera. Why in the world would you only shoot it lashed to a tripod?

I think it's that part where each own has their experience.

I have a GW690III and it is surprisingly handholdable, actually just a bit heavier that a 35mm (not much difference from a pro AF SLR) and bigger in volume. When "in the mojo", it is rather easy to shoot through the 8EXP 120 rolls rather quickly. It seems to get a bad rep in some ways, I will suppose because of priming and comparison to 35mm cameras given the similar form factor.
Some people wrote it off as a tripod camera.

Indeed, as other MF cameras it will benefit of tripod mounting. Close down aperture to optimum or necessary for deep DoF and take it slower.

 

[znapper]

Any man, unless he has a disability should be able to hold something up to 3 kg.

Sure, after a few hours, it's not necessarily fun, but the RZ and the Pentax 67 are perfectly handhold-able, you just need a good shutter-speed, I handhold my RZ67 pro II for portraits all the time, it's not like it's a car not designed to be held.

But it's not for street, sports and action 😛

 

[Moto-Uno]

^ Sounds almost restrictive to me ! Peter

 

[J enea]

Completely disagree. The Pentax is a wonderful handheld camera. Why in the world would you only shoot it lashed to a tripod?

for me a hand held camera means many miles of hiking. having the pentax wood grip on the left sides really helps carrying it that way. and i did shoot many hand held shots with it over many years. I just wanted something a little more portable that could say fit in a large cargo pants pocket, which the mamiya 6 and fuji 645's do.

so yeh it can be and has been used hand held, but the more extreme hiking made it tough. and when you heart rate is up, my only solution was to use mirror lockup to avoid shake and with a shutter speed no less than 1/250. had lots of mis-framed shots because of that. thats not the cameras fault, just my being out of shape. with the smaller rangefinders not having the huge mirror, i can hand hold and get great keepers down to 1/30.

again, just different tools for the job.
john

 

[LukeBanks]

Completely disagree. The Pentax is a wonderful handheld camera. Why in the world would you only shoot it lashed to a tripod?

..I meant the part about having a personal preference for 6x7, but also the ability to choose a different tool for a different project, depending on it's virtues. I haven't had the pleasure of a Pentax yet.

 

[JChrome]

Any man, unless he has a disability should be able to hold something up to 3 kg.

Sure, after a few hours, it's not necessarily fun, but the RZ and the Pentax 67 are perfectly handhold-able, you just need a good shutter-speed, I handhold my RZ67 pro II for portraits all the time, it's not like it's a car not designed to be held.

But it's not for street, sports and action 😛

Generally I would agree it's not for street. But sometimes one is blessed with an RZ in their hands and a great moment to capture.

 

[philosli]

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.

I don't know how "GA645...lack of manual controls" comes from. GA645 has manual mode, which is the only mode I use. GA645 also allows manually setting focus distance for zone focusing, and I use that quite often.

 

[Skiff]

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?

Unfortunately there are a lot of myths and prejudices in the film shooters community concerning these two topics.
Let's have a more detailed look at it:

1. 4,5x6 vs 6x6:
You often hear 4,5x6 is "too small", or "not enough difference to 35mm", or comments like: "If you go medium format, use at least 6x6".
But in about 99% of the shooting situations, these comments are simply wrong. Because in this majority of shooting situations the technical quality of 4,5x6 and 6x6 is absolutely identical.
Why that? Because the quality is only determined by the enlarging factor of the negative (or slide). And the enlarging factor of both formats is identical in most cases. Because the enlarging factor of the 4,5x6 negative/slide is determined by the long, 6cm side. Examples:
a) If you shoot a landscape, and then make a big print (10x enlargement) you get a 45cm x 60cm print with 4,5x6.
And a 60x60cm print with 6x6. Grain, sharpness, tonality and resolution are completely identical (same enlargement factor). The only difference is that you have more sky in the 6x6 shot.
b) If you shoot a portrait in vertical orientation, and make e.g. a 10x enlargement, you will get a vertical 45x60cm print with 4,5x6 and and 60x60cm print with 6x6.
Only difference: Left and right beside the person there will be more (empty, superfluous) room with the 6x6 shot.
But the quality (grain, sharpness, resolution, tonality) is absolutely identical.

There is only one case when you really get a bit more out of 6x6: If you have a subject that really completely / fully fills the whole 6x6 frame. A square/quadrat subject.
But they are really very, very rare.

2. 35mm vs. medium format:
If you look at the sales data for film cameras of the last years (decade) until digital came along, you will see that more than 99,5% (!) of all sold film cameras have been 35mm cams.
Why that? Why this huge dominance of 35mm?
The reason is simple:
35mm film gives an optimal balance = combination = compromise of quality, capabilities, flexibility, versatility and costs.
You can shoot all subjects with 35mm film cameras and get very good to excellent results.

If you look at the differences of 35mm and medium format there is only one real advantage of medium format:
The bigger negative / slide allows bigger enlargements.
So the decisive question is: Do you really need these bigger enlargements. And if, how often?

If you use the right film, even 35mm film can be enlarged up to very big / huge enlargements with excellent quality:
- 35mm Adox CMS 20 II can be enlarged as big as you want; this film has such an incredible fine grain and outstanding high resolution, it is unbelievable: I've projected it up to six meters (!!) width and even at that extreme magnification it delivers amazing detail (much much better than any 35mm digital sensor).

- In (professional) AV-shows (slide shows) modern 35mm reversal films are also projected up to six, seven meters width (often even more) with outstanding quality (please don't forget that in cinemas the even much smaller 18x24mm negs of 35mm movie film are used).

- You all probably know one of the most iconic pictures in photography history. "The Afghan girl" by Steve McCurry. It was shot on 35mm Kodachrome 64 in 1984. This photo has amazing detail: It is very sharp, very high resolution, very fine grain. I've seen a 40x60cm print of it in an exhibition. Nothing lacks, every fine detail is there!
Provia 100F, AgfaPhoto CT Precisa 100, Velvia 50, Velvia 100, Astia 100F, Sensia 100, Ektachrome E100G, Elitechrome 100: All of them even deliver much improved sharpness, resolution and fineness of grain compared to this former Kodachrome 64.
So this shot would even have much more detail if shot with the current reversal films!
But is that really necessary?
No, because even Kodachrome 64 did a wonderful job.

- If you use films like Agfa Copex Rapid, Rollei Retro 80S, Ortho 25, Ilford Pan F +, Ilford Delta 100, Kodak TMX, Fuji Neopan Acros 100 you can make excellent 30x40cm or 40x50/60cm optical prints from them.
How often do you really make / need prints of that size?

Of course a 40x50cm print from 4,5x6/6x6 Acros or Delta 100 will have better detail rendition compared to a print of the same size from 35mm.
But is the difference big enough to overcompensate all the disadvantages of medium format gear?
How often do we need / make huge prints?
That is the question we have to answer for ourselves and our shooting situations.

I am shooting both 35mm and medium format (also both professionally). In most situations 35mm is used (see reasons above; best combination of quality, flexibility, versatiliy and costs; I get the highest keeper rate e.g. at weddings).
If I have enough time for the shots, and very big enlargements are needed, I use medium format.
Horses for courses.

We currently live in very good times for film camera buyers: There are currently excellent 35mm film cameras available at extremely low prices (Nikon F80, F90X, F100, F5, Canon EOS 1n, EOS 1V, EOS 30/33V, EOS 3, Minolta Dynax 800si, Dynax 7, Dynax 9, Leica R5, R6.2, R7, R8, R9).
And also medium format cameras at very low prices (e.g. Mamiya 645 series, RB, Zenza Bronicas, the complete Rollei 6000 series.....).
So no need for a "either - or decision".
Using both 35mm film and medium format with excellent cameras is very affordable.
That will not remain for ever: Film camera prices will rise in the coming years due to the film revival.
Now is the time to buy and built your camera systems.

 

[JChrome]

Unfortunately there are a lot of myths and prejudices in the film shooters community concerning these two topics.
Let's have a more detailed look at it:

1. 4,5x6 vs 6x6:
You often hear 4,5x6 is "too small", or "not enough difference to 35mm", or comments like: "If you go medium format, use at least 6x6".
But in about 99% of the shooting situations, these comments are simply wrong. Because in this majority of shooting situations the technical quality of 4,5x6 and 6x6 is absolutely identical.
Why that? Because the quality is only determined by the enlarging factor of the negative (or slide). And the enlarging factor of both formats is identical in most cases. Because the enlarging factor of the 4,5x6 negative/slide is determined by the long, 6cm side. Examples:
a) If you shoot a landscape, and then make a big print (10x enlargement) you get a 45cm x 60cm print with 4,5x6.
And a 60x60cm print with 6x6. Grain, sharpness, tonality and resolution are completely identical (same enlargement factor). The only difference is that you have more sky in the 6x6 shot.
b) If you shoot a portrait in vertical orientation, and make e.g. a 10x enlargement, you will get a vertical 45x60cm print with 4,5x6 and and 60x60cm print with 6x6.
Only difference: Left and right beside the person there will be more (empty, superfluous) room with the 6x6 shot.
But the quality (grain, sharpness, resolution, tonality) is absolutely identical.

There is only one case when you really get a bit more out of 6x6: If you have a subject that really completely / fully fills the whole 6x6 frame. A square/quadrat subject.
But they are really very, very rare.

2. 35mm vs. medium format:
If you look at the sales data for film cameras of the last years (decade) until digital came along, you will see that more than 99,5% (!) of all sold film cameras have been 35mm cams.
Why that? Why this huge dominance of 35mm?
The reason is simple:
35mm film gives an optimal balance = combination = compromise of quality, capabilities, flexibility, versatility and costs.
You can shoot all subjects with 35mm film cameras and get very good to excellent results.

If you look at the differences of 35mm and medium format there is only one real advantage of medium format:
The bigger negative / slide allows bigger enlargements.
So the decisive question is: Do you really need these bigger enlargements. And if, how often?

If you use the right film, even 35mm film can be enlarged up to very big / huge enlargements with excellent quality:
- 35mm Adox CMS 20 II can be enlarged as big as you want; this film has such an incredible fine grain and outstanding high resolution, it is unbelievable: I've projected it up to six meters (!!) width and even at that extreme magnification it delivers amazing detail (much much better than any 35mm digital sensor).

- In (professional) AV-shows (slide shows) modern 35mm reversal films are also projected up to six, seven meters width (often even more) with outstanding quality (please don't forget that in cinemas the even much smaller 18x24mm negs of 35mm movie film are used).

- You all probably know one of the most iconic pictures in photography history. "The Afghan girl" by Steve McCurry. It was shot on 35mm Kodachrome 64 in 1984. This photo has amazing detail: It is very sharp, very high resolution, very fine grain. I've seen a 40x60cm print of it in an exhibition. Nothing lacks, every fine detail is there!
Provia 100F, AgfaPhoto CT Precisa 100, Velvia 50, Velvia 100, Astia 100F, Sensia 100, Ektachrome E100G, Elitechrome 100: All of them even deliver much improved sharpness, resolution and fineness of grain compared to this former Kodachrome 64.
So this shot would even have much more detail if shot with the current reversal films!
But is that really necessary?
No, because even Kodachrome 64 did a wonderful job.

- If you use films like Agfa Copex Rapid, Rollei Retro 80S, Ortho 25, Ilford Pan F +, Ilford Delta 100, Kodak TMX, Fuji Neopan Acros 100 you can make excellent 30x40cm or 40x50/60cm optical prints from them.
How often do you really make / need prints of that size?

Of course a 40x50cm print from 4,5x6/6x6 Acros or Delta 100 will have better detail rendition compared to a print of the same size from 35mm.
But is the difference big enough to overcompensate all the disadvantages of medium format gear?
How often do we need / make huge prints?
That is the question we have to answer for ourselves and our shooting situations.

I am shooting both 35mm and medium format (also both professionally). In most situations 35mm is used (see reasons above; best combination of quality, flexibility, versatiliy and costs; I get the highest keeper rate e.g. at weddings).
If I have enough time for the shots, and very big enlargements are needed, I use medium format.
Horses for courses.

We currently live in very good times for film camera buyers: There are currently excellent 35mm film cameras available at extremely low prices (Nikon F80, F90X, F100, F5, Canon EOS 1n, EOS 1V, EOS 30/33V, EOS 3, Minolta Dynax 800si, Dynax 7, Dynax 9, Leica R5, R6.2, R7, R8, R9).
And also medium format cameras at very low prices (e.g. Mamiya 645 series, RB, Zenza Bronicas, the complete Rollei 6000 series.....).
So no need for a "either - or decision".
Using both 35mm film and medium format with excellent cameras is very affordable.
That will not remain for ever: Film camera prices will rise in the coming years due to the film revival.
Now is the time to buy and built your camera systems.

Nice write up.

Two points I would add:

1) A lens dedicated to 6x4.5 can* have a smaller image circle than one dedicated to 6x6. This does make a difference for some systems.

2) Medium format is great for printing big sure. But the look is also different than it is on 35mm. Not necessarily an advantage but a difference.

 

[gnuyork]

I just got a 1950s Rolleiflex. No regrets so far. I've only ran 4 rolls of film through it, and yet to develop them... but I have a feeling I will like what I see. The camera is purely a pleasure to use. I can see picking up a couple other MF cameras at some point...this could be dangerous.

 

[Ronald M]

Hasselblad or Rollie slr. Anything else is too big to move around. Avoid the Yashica or Chinese stuff.

I gave up my MF or D800e Nikons. Same or better quality.

Best quality is 4x5, quality lenses, and a tripod. You will need a cart to move it around unless you buy some flimsy limited thing.

 

[pepeguitarra]

Another one convinced by Pentax 6x7, the ideal MF camera

Another one convinced by Pentax 6x7, the ideal MF camera

I just got a Pentax 6x7 immaculate, I soon will get my 55/4 and 200/4 lenses to get started. I cannot wait to develop those negatives. 😛

 

[narsuitus]

"Now, I have a chance to trade one of my M2's for a 645 system."

"I am trying to decide on getting a 645 for a trade or getting a bigger system. Comments?"

I shoot small format, medium format, and large format.

I shoot 6x6, 6x7, and 6x9 medium format. I have never shot 6x4.5cm medium format.

Even though I have never been satisfied with my 35mm small format black and white images, I would never trade my Leica M6 for a 6x4.5 because I need the quiet operation and fast lenses of the Leica and I only have one Leica. However, if I had three M-mount Leica film bodies, I would consider trading one.

Also, I would never get a 6x4.5 system to use in conjunction with my 35mm system because for me, the slight improvement in image quality is not worth maintaining two systems. I prefer the larger improvement in image quality I am able to obtain from my 6x7 and 6x9 cameras and am therefore willing to maintain those systems.

On the other hand, if I were starting from scratch, I would gladly invest in a good 6x4.5 system because it is an excellent compromise between a 35mm small format system and a larger medium format system.


Small Format vs. Medium Format by Narsuitus, on Flickr

 

[Huss]

Also, I would never get a 6x4.5 system to use in conjunction with my 35mm system because for me, the slight improvement in image quality is not worth maintaining two systems.

There is no slight improvement in quality. It is a massive improvement.

And yes, I have a bunch of Leicas w/ Leica lenses, Nikons with Zeiss ZF lenses etc. They do not come close to the image quality of my Mamiya 645, let alone my Rolleiflexes or GW690III.

But I'll never give up 35mm, because it is perfect for its purpose.

 

[Swift1]

There is no slight improvement in quality. It is a massive improvement.

And yes, I have a bunch of Leicas w/ Leica lenses, Nikons with Zeiss ZF lenses etc. They do not come close to the image quality of my Mamiya 645, let alone my Rolleiflexes or GW690III.

But I'll never give up 35mm, because it is perfect for its purpose.

Couldn't agree more.
I shoot 35mm, 6x4.5, 6x6, 6x7, 6x9, and 4x5, and 6x4.5 definitely has a place in my kit. I have often chosen to take my Bronica ETRSI kit on roadtrips intead of my Pentax 67 kit (for a number of reasons) and have not once regretted the decision.

 

[Huss]

I haven't had this experience. I tried 645 with Fuji rangefinders and the difference with 35mm is minimal. I'd like to try the Mamiya. Which body/lens are you using? 6x6 and 6x7 was a massive improvement for me. Especially with the Rolleiflex, Hasselblad or Pentax 67.

The only thing I can think of is an issue with your camera (focusing - the RF or AF could be off), camera shake, poor processing from whoever did it.

I use a Mam 645 Pro TL and the 80 1.9, 80 2.8, 45mm, 105 etc. Doesn't make a difference, the results all are much higher quality than 35mm. And that is with cheap gear! I'm not talking about Contax 645 or even Pentax 645 stuff.
Comparing it to my Rolleiflexes there is a very small increase quality as the gain is only on the length side. Once you get to Fuji 6by9, well, there is a 100% increase on the length side.

 

[Huss]

as an add on, I have no loyalty to any brand or format. If 6x4.5 did not show significant quality increase over 35mm, I would not use it.