Medium format & large format

<p>Hi guys,<br>

I have a simple yet complicated question to ask you guys:<br>

What makes a medium format camera different from say a, Canon 450D? What exactly is a medium/large format camera? I heard that many fashion photographers use medium formats for magazine quality photos and i can't understand how a film camera can produce high digital-quality images!<br /><br />Please help me understand!</p>

<p>Film size is the principal discriminating difference.</p>

<p>MF uses roll fim, like 120 size. Negs can be various sizes, ranging from 6x4.5 (mm) to 6x9. 6x6 is perhaps most common. MF cameras can be very high quality with very high quality optics. </p>

<p>LF uses larger film, most often in single sheets. Neg sizes can range from 2x3 (inch), but are most typically 4x5 or 8x10. Beyond 8x10 is known as Ultra Large Format... and negs can get HUGE. LF cameras typically have additional features called movements.</p>

<p>Couple equipment like this with a photographer with a "good eye" and who knows the craft (and uses a tripod) is how a film camera can produce high quality images.</p>

<p>Please go to the Large Format Photgraphy format pages (<a href="http://www.largeformatphotography.info">www.largeformatphotography.info</a>) and you'll have a complete lesson in what LF is all about.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Euph, a large format camera is typically described as one taking 4x5 or larger film. Medium format is usually described as taking 120/220/620 roll film or 2 1/4 x 3 1/4 or 3 1/4 x 4 1/4 (also called quarter plate) sheet film. I don't know where the old 127 roll film would fall in this classification.</p>

<p>Thanks for your input Robert and Brian.<br>

Do these cameras function like a DSLR, besides the film & digital aspect?</p>

<p>& where does one buy such 4x5 film? The 120 can be bought from regular camera/film stores right?</p>

<p>The resolution of film is hotly arguable. The reality is it is no simple question. Arguably you could count the silver grains but it is a bit more complicated than that even. Number, size, placement, amount of light that hits each one, and on and on and on it could realistically go. It also would have to go so far as to compare each film to individual sensors because each film emulsion and arguably each batch of each emulsion has its own characteristics theoretically the same amount of silver but dispersed differently which could change the capture resolution. So to compare on that alone would be tough to impossible (the old saying apples to oranges holds to this). However, suffice it to say, medium and large format films have, by sheer nature of relative size and size relative to print far higher resolution than 35mm and arguably current digital cameras. </p>

<p>No back to your inquiry, some of those shooting for magazines that use medium format are using digital backs which yield greater image resolution than standard 35mm (or roughly 24mm) sensors. Of the ones that still use film there are two ways this can be processed. First a drum scanner or other high quality high resolution extremely high color and latitude reproduction scanner creates a high resolution scan of the image in raw format for editing and pulling out the little bits of information that digital capture doesn't do as well, the subtleties arising from the difference between bits of information captured in either on or off format and a chemical process created in an organic material and processed in chemicals. The other is to go with a good old print from a photo the way it was up until the late 90's. Some periodicals still do this though most prefer to keep it simpler. </p>

<p>Considering modern printing techniques though I suppose conversion to digital makes more sense. Essentially we use a 1's and 0's version of printing. Instructions sent to the printer's color heads as on and off. Makes sense that those instructions come from a capture method that understands that. </p>

<p>Thanks Christopher!<br>

So would it be safe to say that a 120film camera + SLR settings, are usually medium formats?</p>

<p>Funny you should say "I don't understand how a film camera can produce high digital quality images". Just 10 years ago it was the reverse. Yes a top of the line DSLR does give better results, in many ways, than a 35mm film camera. As the film gets bigger, the comparison changes. I think that my RB67 film camera is roughly equal in quality to my 5D2. But the 5D2, or even the Hasselblad digitals are not at all the equal of a good 4x5 or larger film camera, when it comes to resolution or overall beauty of the image. For the best possible results it is 8x10 or larger film. And yes, 120= medium format.</p>

<p>But what about holgas or dianas? Are they medium formats?</p>

<p>Holgas and Dianas are Medium format. The thing though is that the quality of those cameras is in their lack of quality. Quality is a relative term but the appeal is the effects the poor components give the images. Essentially with cameras it all comes down to Glass and capture medium. The quality of the Glass and the characteristics of the capture medium are the major deciding factors to the overall look and quality of the image. A plastic non polished single element plastic lens won't give the same look or (my over used word here but it is too early to thesaurize my PN posts) quality as a nice multielement Multicoated piece of Zeiss or Schneider or Fuji or Nikkor glass in front of your high quality film or sensor. </p>

<p>Medium format is essentially anything between 35mm and 2X3 and Large format is anything between 2X3 and 8x10 smaller than 35mm is not commonly in use anymore but I would say anything between 110 and 35mm is common use or snapshot film. Basically and anything larger than 8X10 is Ultra Large format. </p>

<p>Thanks for the info Christopher!!</p>

<p>Most large format cameras are large and heavy, require a tripod for use, and are 100% mechanical with no electronics. An 8x10 inch negative is almost as large as a sheet of letter size paper. A full frame DSLR sensor is almost 1x1.5 inches. The comparison is 80 square inches versus 1.5 square inches. The cameras require a methodical approach, and with many opportunities to make a mistake. However once the photographer learns the mechanics, and finds the best photo applications for it, the results are exceedingly gratifying. It's a case where much work is required for very much to be gained.</p>

<p>

<p ><em>Do these cameras function like a DSLR, besides the film & digital aspect?</em></p>

 

Whatever that means. I'd say yes. Light comes in through the lens end, hits an appropriate material at the sensitive end, and the bit in the middle is a matter of a dark box and ergonomics.

</p>

<p>Euph;</p>

<p>Before the Instamatic came out in 1963 ; Joe Average shot with a box camera using 120 and 620 film.</p>

<p>The 120 format was developed for children. It was a little kids toy format 100 years ago; ie the Brownie format; named after a little kids comic figure. It was like the Barbie camera of its era.</p>

<p>By volume of cameras ever made in MF 120/620; most are simple cameras with one lens; ie a box camera. By volume; most MF cameras made only are as good as a Blackberry.</p>

<p>One has many many thousands of MF box cameras made per a better MF one with a triplet or Tessar. MF cameras were once a dollar; or given away free; many shot less than todays disposibles. </p>

<p>Today on Photo.net most folks seem to forget the masses used MF with 2 dollar cameras. Only about 1 to 5 percent of MF cameras ever made have more than a single element lens.</p>

<p>The bulk of MF every shot was my amateurs with MF box cameras; much of this stuff in old show boxes has not the best details. MF's usages peaked over 40 years ago. 120 and 620 was once in very drug store in the USA.</p>

<p>I'm always appreciative of Kelly's ability and willingness ty to recall and share (respectively) photographic history. I learn something new every time, sometimes for the second or third time. :)</p>

<p>Just think of it this way. </p>

<p>The phrases medium format etc have been about many many years and are <em>based on film sizes.</em> The word <em>format </em>is referring to the format of the film ie what size.</p>

<p>So if you think of film formats you will see them go from small format to ultra large format.</p>

<p>A small format is 110 and 35mm. That is because the film is small.</p>

<p>Next biggest film is a 120 or 220 roll of film. Cameras using this film are called medium format cameras because the film is medium sized.</p>

<p>Larger films are used by large format cameras. This is where film measures 5x4 inches to 10x8 inches.</p>

<p>When digital came about, digital cameras were based on film cameras. Some DSLR's have sensors smaller than a 35mm frame they are still small format cameras. </p>

<p>Euph, although the Holgas use plastic lenses, the 120 film within can still trump your average 35mm style digicam. Sharpness....no, but the tonality, especially in black and white, the is produced simply cannot be matched by small (or miniature if you prefer) cameras. A DLSR can better 135 film in many ways in certain conditions, but 135 film will still produce a more natural looking image with far greater dynamic range and tonality. Now with medium format, times the size of that piece of silver halide five fold, and you are in different league. But there are payoffs for using large format. The cameras are bigger, and the lenses are slower. However film speed can be comfortably increased with the medim format and give comparable results of a small format camera with slower film. This is because, to get the same print size, you need not enlarge the original image as much, thus you are not enlarging the grain as well.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>A DLSR can better 135 film in many ways in certain conditions, but 135 film will still produce a more natural looking image with far greater dynamic range and tonality.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I don't know if that's true anymore. <a href="http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/eng/DxOMark-Sensor/Camera-rankings">DxOMark</a>'s rankings has the Nikon D3x dynamic range <em>measured </em>by them at 13.7. That's better than any film that I know. The Phase One P65 is at 13.</p>

<p>From what I've been seeing with current digital's, you have to shoot LF to trump their IQ - and that's assuming you can scan the film well enough to preserve its IQ. Enlarging (optical) 4x5 and printing on R4 will lose some of it's IQ in that process. Of course, contact printing 8x10 or larger would be the ultimate in print IQ.</p>

<p>...and I'm going to stop right here before we go down this road any further......</p>

<p>Whats IQ? Inherent quality?</p>

<p>"IQ" often means Image Quality.</p>

<p>Ok Ta! :)</p>

<p>Yes, the basic principal remains the same between a DSLR and a MF or LF film camera (lens focuses light onto a film plane). However, the construction and operation of a Medium or Large Format camera, aside from the differences in quality, are very different from a DSLR. I'd like to cover some of those differences.</p>

<p>A medium format SLR has the same basic contruction of a DSLR, in that what you see in the finder is what will be exposed to the film. But, most MF SLR's have a leaf shutter in the lens, while DSLR's use a shutter close to the focal plane. There are other differences. You can set a DSLR to a variety of setting, including shutter priority, aperture priority, fully automatic, etc. With most MF SLR's, you would need to get a special metered prism (they're usually interchangeable) just to have trough the lens metering. Even then, only the really nice ones are coupled to the lens as seamlessly as in DSLR's. Anyway, most people like to use an external light meter when using a MF SLR.</p>

<p>Then, there are other types of MF cameras. TLR's use two lenses: one to look through and one to expose the film through. This is a simpler camera to build, but has some downsides, like parallax issues and lack of depth of field preview. Also, only the Mamiya C series has interchangeable lenses. The features and limitations as well as the feel of a TLR make it totally different from an SLR, film or digital. Then there are rangefinders. Again, totally different from an SLR, film or digital.</p>

<p>Now, the way a large format camera works, while based on the same principals, is again totally different. A LF view camera essentially just holds the lens and film. There is usually not a prism to look through onto the ground glass, so the image is upside-down and backwards while composing. There is no such things as through the lens metering. You set the camera on a tripod, focus, meter, insert a sheet of film, set the lens(which contains the shutter), take out the dark-slide, fire the shutter, put the dark slide back in... anyway, it's nothing like using an SLR. Also, view cameras allow you to set the film plane and lens plane at a variety of angles to one another, so that the plane of sharp focus can be anywhere in the scene. This is a tough thing to do extremely well, but can make for better images. This doesn't even cover LF press cameras or LF SLR's, but you get the idea... the operation would again be a unique experience.</p>

<p>If you're interested more in different camera constructions, take a look at Ansel Adam's 'The Camera.' The first part covers all of this in much more detail with lots of nice diagrams and pictures.</p>

<p>Hope this is part of what you were wondering about...</p>

<p>Thanks Graham, for your detailed explanation!!</p>