More camera format decisions

[MadMan2k]

I need to decide where I want to go with photography for now, and what kind of equipment I need to get to facilitate that. I love rangefinders from an equipment lover's perspective, but the majority of my shooting doesn't really make use of their strong points. That said, you can pry my M3 out of my cold, lifeless hands...

I enjoy landscape and nature stuff as well as street and event shooting, but I think the M3 with the 35 2.5 (and a 90 3.5 and some kind of 50) will have that covered.

I was planning on going with large format, but the guy who had the camera I was going to buy decided to keep it because to give me a price that was fair to the market he wouldn't get enough. I could still get a 4x5 from Ebay or something, but that leads to my question...

For enlargements, would a medium format SLR system (Mamiya or Hasselblad, assuming I used their high end multicoated lenses) be comparable to a 4x5 view camera with lenses in the same price range? I'll be making mostly 16x20's for display, and I want them to look as good as possible. I will budget enough for drum scans and pro prints when the image is worth it.

I heard that large format lenses are sometimes subpar compared to a lot of 35mm RF lenses because the degree of enlargement you need for the 4x5 or 8x10 negs is smaller than from 35mm. Is that accurate?

I do want to focus on getting one killer image per outing instead of shooting a roll of good chrome and trying to get 5 or 10 maybe-printable images before the light's gone like I do now. I think large format would help with that, since I couldn't rattle off frames or even carry very much film for it.

Anyway, any suggestions would be great. I might even stick with 35mm and get a good film scanner (well, probably going to do that either way, but if I don't get a bigger system I'll be able to afford more glass and bodies), or *gasp* save up for a 1DS.

 

[Doug]

Jon I think you'll get a differnt "look" from medium format or large format than from smaller. I'd think 6x7 (56x70) would be more useful to you than 6x6 (56x56) for rectangular enlargements. A large part of the decision will revolve around what sort of gear you find most satisfying to use. Hand-held vs tripod; sheet film vs roll, focus and perspective controls in the camera, upside-down and reversed focusing and viewing...

I've been tempted by press cameras like the Linhof Techikas, but when it comes right down to it, I'm sure I'm happier with the Pentax 67 system. It's like a giant 35 SLR and that suits me well, a superb field camera. I bought my Leica M2 in 1967, and my first P6x7 in 1976... not a bad combination!

 

[taffer]

Well, in my own experience, it takes time to really find out what suits best to you and the images you will end taking. So I wouldn't be investing a ton of money into a system without having tried it before for a while, or at least without knowing that you'll be able to recover your money easily by selling it in case you change your mind or your imagery changes it.

As for LF vs MF, I read some words from Barry Thornton (in the Edge of Darkness book) about that same question, and my memory about is that for big (not huge) enlargements, MF was his take, since the shortcomings of large format didn't translate later in a proportional benefit at printing time.

There isn't something like a universal tool for everybody and for every task, so I'm afraid you'll have to do some personal experiences and try to be objective about which one 'suits' you the best...

Good luck !

 

[Meleica]

MY favorite image size is 16 x20 inches and the only way too get a crisp print of nicely graduated tones is to use 6x7 or larger film. I choose Pentax 67. I also shoot ( and love ) my Fuji GA645Zi camera with its 6x4.5 format. While I can get very nice 16x20's from it, its much easier with the larger 6x7 film. See my website for links to a lot of Medium Format info (Pentax 67 lenses, Fuji Rangefinders, TLR's ).
Dan

 

[mbisc]

For enlargements, would a medium format SLR system (Mamiya or Hasselblad, assuming I used their high end multicoated lenses) be comparable to a 4x5 view camera with lenses in the same price range? I'll be making mostly 16x20's for display, and I want them to look as good as possible. I will budget enough for drum scans and pro prints when the image is worth it.

I heard that large format lenses are sometimes subpar compared to a lot of 35mm RF lenses because the degree of enlargement you need for the 4x5 or 8x10 negs is smaller than from 35mm. Is that accurate?

I do want to focus on getting one killer image per outing instead of shooting a roll of good chrome and trying to get 5 or 10 maybe-printable images before the light's gone like I do now. I think large format would help with that, since I couldn't rattle off frames or even carry very much film for it.

In order of your question -- no and no

Although there is a learning curve to get good 4x5 shots, the image quality is leaps and bounds above any MF system -- especially if you use a handheld MF SLR system. Since you are interested in landscapes, a LF system will also give you perspective control, which no MF can give you. The old Rollei SL66 system tried, but it wasn't successful.

Modern LF lenses (esp. Rodenstocks) are on par with their smaller brethren, and even some of their granddaddies will hold their own (I particularly like the old Ektar 203, which is small and usually very cheap).

For true killer images, LF is typically the way to go. Obviously, you can't really use it for sports photography or street photography, but for anything were the object doesn't move (fast) and you have the time to properly set up the camera, the results will speak for themselves (and don't let any digital bozo tell you otherwise😉 )

Cheers,
Mike

 

[MadMan2k]

Thanks for the replies. I guess I'll do more reading, and try to figure out which one would work best for me.

I see that the Mamiya RZ67 has a built in bellows for close focus, that would be pretty nice for macro stuff. I think with large format, since the lenses are so long, I'd have to stop down so much to shoot macro with enough DOF (even if I could focus close enough) that I'd get subject movement in the plants/bugs, and that wouldn't be very good. The perspective control and tilt/shift does sound really nice though.

 

[Wayne R. Scott]

Jon,

I know that this is borderline heresy, but for wildlife photography and macro photography in the wild, a 35mm SLR is probably your best tool.

If you are truly going to be enlarging prints to 16x20 on a regular basis 4x5 will win hands down. Will you be shooting B&W or color?

Normally for landscape photos very little camera movements are required. With this in mind I would reccomend a Crown Graphic or Super Graphic 4x5 with grafloc back. These can be used as an inexpensive field camera that folds up with the lens inside the camera. Add a RH-10 rollfilm adapter and you can shoot 120 film in 6x7 format.

With 4x5 film holders you can shoot color or B&W by simply changing to the properly loaded film holder. This can also be accomplished with medium format cameras that have changeable backs, like the Mamiya RB 67, Bronica GS, etc.

How much money are you wanting to spend on your equipment?

Wayne

 

[MadMan2k]

Yeah, I guess a 35mm would be best for wildlife. I can get an m42 mount Takumar 500mm 4.5 for $350, but good m42 teleconverters seem to be hard to find... It also close focuses down to 30 feet, but I have a set of extension tubes to use with it if I get it.

For landscapes I'll shoot a lot of color slide, but I'd like to play with exposing directly to paper and other funky stuff that sheet film would help with. I'll look at those field cameras.

As to money... Between $500 and $1000 would be good. Less even better, so I have more money for rangefinder stuff.

 

[VictorM.]

Having used many film sizes between ½-frame 35mm to 8X10, I found sheet film better in every way. Sharpness (thicker based film is flatter than any roll film), tonal gradation, grain or just about anything related to film is improved with larger film. Some people do find the learning curve too steep. Borrowing and renting may be a good way to test your interest. Or take a course, if you can find one, at a school that has view cameras.

Lenses for large format can be of questionable quality, especially older ones. The newer lenses (early eighties onward) can be unbelievably good.

My favourite format was 5X7.

 

[Meleica]

<<mount Takumar 500mm 4.5 for $350>>>

Monster and I mean a monster of a lens. I've used it....you'll use this once too and then seek Canon EOS for your big tele needs. -Dan

 

[Finder]

First the type of camera really affects the way you shoot - there are medium-format view cameras so you can have camera movements regardless if you go to medium or large format. So you need to figure out the type of camera that will be less of a burden - TLR, SLR, rangefinder, viewfinder, flat-bed view camera, press camera, monorail, etc.

Large format is slow, but has amazing detail. Medium format is right between the versatility of small format (35mm) and the image quality of large format. The other nice thing about medium format is that it is the king of formats - 6x4.5, 6x6, 6x7, 6x8, 6x9, 6x12, 6x17, 6x24, and a few more that are no longer in production. You can also get medium format backs for 4x5 and 5x7 cameras.

I have shot many formats. Medium format is the ideal compromise for me. I can easily make 20" prints from my 400ISO negs - actually, print size has nothing to do with format size; you can make any size print from any format and it will not affect image quality.

Are large format lenses "subpar?" No. Are small format lenses higher resolution? Yes and no. While the differences can be measured, the results are difficult to see. Also, resolving power by itself is not an indicator of image detail nor sharpness. Larger formats will always outperform smaller ones. Absolute resolving power data is meaningless.

 

[Doug]

Medium format is the ideal compromise for me. I can easily make 20" prints from my 400ISO negs - actually, print size has nothing to do with format size; you can make any size print from any format and it will not affect image quality.

I'll just jump in to address this controversial view... 🙂 I think it is true in the sense that as the size of the enlargment increases, so does viewing distance. And at a distance suitable for appreciating the entire composition, grain and sharpness recede as well... assuming an acceptable 8x10 is possible too. Even at 8x10 though I can see qualities that are easier to achieve with medium format than smaller films.

I'll also offer a story about wildlife photography... I encountered a guy who in his 20's went on several guided "safari" photo expeditions overseas with his 35mm SLR gear. He liked it so much, and his results were good enough, that he decided to switch to medium format and make this genre a career. He bought a brand new Pentax 67, a 300mm and 2x doubler for the distance shots, plus a 45mm for camp and close-in photos, and a Photo Trekker backpack.

About the time he got all this together, but before heading off to Africa or India etc, he got distracted by marriage. Then a kid, and a mortgage, and a steady job to support the above... and the Pentax gear sat on the shelf for a decade or so. When he finally gave up the dream, he sold the stuff on eBay.

I won't say his choice for wildlife-on-the-veldt was the best, as it was essentially a failed effort not put to the test. But at least it shows where some experience out in the field with smaller format led his thoughts.

I love medium format, but have to admit a long fascination with the idea of 4x5 or larger, and when I worked in a camera shop years ago I had the opportunity to drool periodically over the beautiful Linhof magazine Grossbild Technik... 🙂

 

[mbisc]

Normally for landscape photos very little camera movements are required. With this in mind I would reccomend a Crown Graphic or Super Graphic 4x5 with grafloc back.

Don't want to start a big argument about this, especially not on this forum, but landscapes not needing much movements is really not correct. I used to think that myself, but a couple LF class later, I have been reformed -- and yes, I switched from a Crown Graphic 45 to an Arca Swiss Field Camera. There are countless good ways to use camera movements, not the least of which is the "classic LF photo" (and maybe bad cliche) of the small flower in the foreground with the large mountain in the background...
Mike

 

[Wayne R. Scott]

Don't want to start a big argument about this, especially not on this forum, but landscapes not needing much movements is really not correct. I used to think that myself, but a couple LF class later, I have been reformed -- and yes, I switched from a Crown Graphic 45 to an Arca Swiss Field Camera. There are countless good ways to use camera movements, not the least of which is the "classic LF photo" (and maybe bad cliche) of the small flower in the foreground with the large mountain in the background...
Mike

Mike,

No arguement from me, as I do agree with you. I have always believed that it is better to have something and not need it than to not have something and need it. (Wheter it be money, a gun, extra food on a backpacking trip, or more camera movements, etc,).

Jon, the original poster is 17 years old, perhaps he can afford an Acra Swiss Field Camera and a gaggle of modern lenses in Copal shutters, plus all of the extras that make for a heavy backpack. When I was 17 I could not.

As I am sure you are aware of the learning curve in large format photography, i.e. all of the ways to turn your film into ISO 0, it can add up to some serious bucks for the beginner. After going through the learning curve with an inexpensive camera like your (and my) Crown Graphic a person can decide if they like large format photgraphy and buy a proper camera like a Canham 8x10🙂

One of my pet peeves is when a young person asks for advice on how to start out in an endeavor like street photography, macro photography, etc. and a bunch of us old geezers reccomend $10,000 worth of equipment as a bare minimum to get started. We say, "You must use a Leica MP with Summilux, or a Nikon F6 with ED glass, or a Hassleblad, or an Alpha or a Deardorff, etc." We have basically poured ice cold water onto their burning desire to make photographs because they are worried about making their rent payment for the month and trying to keep the bank from asking for their car back. They say to themselves that there is no way they can afford to do photography and they look to other hobbies.

I think my ranting is done for this morning. Time for another cup of coffee.

Wayne

 

[mbisc]

Mike,

No arguement from me, as I do agree with you. I have always believed that it is better to have something and not need it than to not have something and need it. (Wheter it be money, a gun, extra food on a backpacking trip, or more camera movements, etc,).

Jon, the original poster is 17 years old,
...snip

Point taken -- my bad, I didn't look at the profile of Jon 😉

Jon -- Wayne is right, get yourself a beater Crown Graphic 45 with a nice old f7.7/203mm Ektar lens and go out and shoot some LF film. That's how I got started, and I'm sure you'll love it! For more details on those wonderful cameras, check http://graflex.org/.

Mike

 

[MadMan2k]

Thanks for the concern. I don't think there's any way I'm going to give up photography anytime soon (or not so soon) - it's absolutely the best craft I've found to devote a lifetime to.

I like those speed/crown graphics, shooting street with one of those would be fun but not exactly as inconspicous as with an RF 😛

No, I can't really afford a complete view camera setup yet, but if I'm lucky I'll be working full time over the summer making enough to buy some gear and still save up some. I'll have a few hundred a month to spend on stuff for now.

 

[Ewoud]

Whatever you decide to buy, shoot with it! 😉

I've just bought a MF Mamiya RB 67 this afternoon and can't wait to start photographing with it.. I settled on this system cause its the biggest size am willing to carry around without a car(I don't have one..)

 

[venchka]

Proper enlargements

Proper enlargements

...For enlargements, would a medium format SLR system (Mamiya or Hasselblad, assuming I used their high end multicoated lenses) be comparable to a 4x5 view camera with lenses in the same price range? I'll be making mostly 16x20's for display, and I want them to look as good as possible. I will budget enough for drum scans and pro prints when the image is worth it.

Everyone else has addressed the format question. Let me just add that I own & use both 35mm rangefinder and slr gear and Pentax 6x7 gear. Each has it's time and place. BTW, ALL medium format lenses are high end multicoated lenses. The SMC Takumars are among the best and quite fast in a few focal lengths. The 45mm 1:4.0 is stunning too. Also, $100 will buy you a set of used extension tubes for the Pentax so you don't have to lug around the RZ 67 to get close ups.

Now, here's my rant: Why in the world would you go to the trouble of making killer chromes and negatives with MF or LF and then have the originals scanned? Eh????????? Even if it means forsaking color all together, creating your own negatives and prints the right way will always be more rewarding and produce better results. Classic example: Lith printing. Try to do that with a digital image and Photoshop. If you are unfamiliar with the term, GOOGLE can show you the way.

End of rant.

Start slow. A body. A lens. Some film. Some light. Learn B&W processing and print making. From scratch. With your own hands. It might take years to outgrow a single camera and lens. If/when you do, you'll know what you need to grow in the direction you wish to go.

EDIT TO ADD: Your photo in Regan Airport is stunning! I could learn from you. Imgaine if the original were 6x7 or 4x5.

 

[MadMan2k]

I do process B&W and I've played with printing it with a homemade enlarger thing, and I'm going to get an enlarger and get into that a little more. Thing is, I'm terrible at B&W landscape work, so I'll be shooting a lot of slide with the medium/LF camera. I could probably try printing in color but I have a very small space for the 'darkroom'.

Thanks for the comment about the airport shot. Sure, it would be nice to have a great big negative of it, but it wouldn't be so nice to get arrested for having a huge camera on a tripod out in the middle of an airport, and get s**tlisted for the rest of my life by the government.